Soil Water Relationships: January 2007

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 41

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/43265020

Soil water relationships

Article · January 2007


DOI: 10.13031/2013.23689 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
6 5,899

2 authors, including:

A. W. Warrick
The University of Arizona
245 PUBLICATIONS   6,507 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Scaling Soil Hydrological Properties and Processes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. W. Warrick on 30 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


CHAPTER 6

SOIL WATER
RELATIONSHIPS
Roger E. Smith (UDSA-ARS,
Fort Collins, Colorado)
Arthur W. Warrick (University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona)
Abstract. Basic relations of soil water and soil water flow important in irrigation
design are presented, and methods to measure soil water content, pressure head, and
conductivity are outlined. The calculation of infiltration rates and the measurement of
soil infiltration parameters are discussed, as well as many of the complexities and
challenges in applying current understanding to irrigation situations.
Keywords. Infiltration, Redistribution, Soil physics, Soil water.

6.1 INTRODUCTION
Design and operation of efficient irrigation systems require knowledge of the proc-
esses controlling movement and storage of water in soil. This chapter outlines basic
concepts of the nature of soil water and the interactive forces that affect the distribu-
tion and movement of water in the soil-water-plant system. Methods for measuring the
state of soil water, and soil properties that describe water movement and water-holding
characteristics of soils are presented and discussed. Methods to measure hydraulic
conductivity in both saturated and unsaturated soils are presented and techniques for
predicting the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function from the soil water reten-
tion characteristic are discussed. Factors controlling infiltration rates and procedures
for measuring infiltration characteristics are also presented and discussed. References
are given to allow the reader to pursue any of these topics in greater detail, and to ob-
tain more detailed outlines of measurement methods.
6.2 WATER-HOLDING CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS
Soil water has traditionally been of interest because of its influence on plant growth
and crop production as well as runoff processes. A growing plant must be able to bal-
ance the atmospheric demand for water with the amount it can extract from the soil.
The soil water supply is alternately depleted through evapotranspiration and replen-
ished by irrigation or precipitation. Today soil water is of increasing of concern as a
medium through which chemicals may move and potentially harm surface or ground-
water.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 121

6.2.1 Soil Water Content


Soils hold water to the extent that they have porosity, and the water usually shares
that pore space with air. Even “saturated” soil will usually have some air trapped
within. The porosity of soil itself is quite variable, in response to both natural and ag-
ricultural practices.
Soil water content, by weight, is calculated as:
Wmoist − Wdry Wmoist
θw = = −1 (6.1)
Wdry Wdry
where θw= water content expressed on the basis of the dry weight of soil
Wmoist = moist soil weight
Wdry = oven-dry soil weight.
It is common to express soil water contents on a volumetric basis, i.e., the ratio of
the soil water volume to the total soil volume. This is done by multiplying the water
content on a dry weight basis by the ratio of the soil bulk density, ρb, and water den-
sity, ρw, as follows:
ρ
θ = θw b (6.2)
ρw
where θ = water content on a volume basis. The soil bulk density (or apparent den-
sity), ρb, is defined as the oven-dry weight of soil per unit volume, as it occurs in the
field. In the following discussion, θ will be used to mean volumetric water content.
6.2.2 Soil Water Potential
Soil water content alone is not a satisfactory criterion for describing the availability
of water to plants and attempts have been made to describe water availability in terms
of the energy state of water. Initially, empirical measurements and relationships were
developed, but these gave way to consideration of fundamental mechanisms and ex-
pressions. The soil-water-plant system is now treated as a continuous dynamic system
where water moves through the soil to plant root surfaces, into roots, through the
plant, and into the atmosphere along a path of continuously decreasing potential en-
ergy. The removal of soil water depends not only upon its amount and energy state,
but also upon the ability of the plant to absorb water and the atmospheric demand for
water from the plant. A more detailed discussion of the various potential components
can be found in a paper by Rawlins (1976).
About the beginning of the 20th century, soil water was arbitrarily classified into
different forms such as gravitational water, capillary water, hygroscopic water, etc.
(Briggs, 1897, cited by Richards and Wadleigh, 1952). These early groupings have
been replaced by a fundamental concept referred to as soil water potential. Soil water
does not occur in separable “forms” within the range of our interest, but does vary in
the energy with which it is retained in the soil. The work per unit weight to move an
infinitesimal amount of water from some reference state to a given point in the soil is
known as the total soil water potential, hT. The usual reference state, arbitrarily de-
fined as having zero potential, is an open air-water interface at some specified eleva-
tion and air pressure. Energy must be expended to remove water from an unsaturated
soil, so the soil water potential is less than the reference state and thus has a negative
sign. The potential gradient, or rate of decrease of potential energy with distance, is
the driving force causing soil water flow (Section 6.4). Thus, soil water will move
122 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

from a wet area where the potential is near zero, toward a dry region where the poten-
tial is lower (a larger negative value). The soil water pressure has dimensions of
[M/LT2], and the equivalent potential hT has dimension of length. Other definitions
will follow resulting in dimensions of pressure and energy per unit mass.
The total soil water potential may be expressed as the sum of three component po-
tentials:
hT = hg + hp + ha (6.3)
where hT = total soil water potential
hg = gravitational potential
hp = matric or pressure potential
ha = pneumatic potential.
Gravitational potential, hg, is the elevation. If z is the height above a defined refer-
ence plane, hg = z. The value of hg can be positive (if above the reference) or negative
(if below the reference).
The value of hp, the pressure (and matric) potential, can be positive or negative and
is equal to the soil water pressure head (i.e., the pressure divided by the specific
weight). If the soil water pressure is greater than the adjoining gas phase pressure, then
hp will be positive. If the pressure of the soil water is less than the adjoining gas phase,
hp will be negative. This is due to the attraction of soil surfaces for water, the influence
of soil pores, and the curvature of the soil water interface. For this situation, hp is also
called the matric potential. It is convenient to consider pressure potential as a continu-
ous function of water content, which is positive in a saturated soil below the water
table and negative in unsaturated soil. Since soil water potential is generally negative,
it is often given a positive value and referred to as suction or tension.
The pneumatic potential, ha, (energy per unit mass) may be expressed as ha =
psa /(ρ g), where psa is the soil air pressure, ρ is the density of water, and g is gravita-
tional acceleration. Usually the air pressure is considered to be uniform throughout the
soil profile and the pneumatic potential is ignored in characterizing soil water flow.
Such assumptions are not always justified; see Section 6.4.
Two other ways are used to define potential. These are energy per unit volume, hT,v,
and energy per unit mass, hT,m. The dimensions of hT,v are pressure, and the relation to
hT, above, is
hT,v = ρ ghT (6.4a)
Similarly, the relationship between hT and hT,m is
hT,m= ghT (6.4b)
A useful conversion table taken from Hillel (1971) is given here as Table 6.1.
Table 6.1. Energy levels of soil water expressed in various units (from Hillel, 1971).
Soil Water Potential Soil Water Suction
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit
Weight Mass Volume Weight Per Unit Volume
(mm H2O) (joules/kg) (kPa) (mm H2O) (kPa) (bars)
–102.0 –1 –1 102.1 1.0 0.01
–1020. –10 –10 1020. 10. 0.1
–5100. –50 –50 5100. 50. 0.5
–10200. –100 –100 10200. 100. 1.0
–51000. –500 –500 51000. 500. 5.0
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 123

To avoid confusion among the various expressions for soil water energy status, one
must keep in mind that a low potential refers to dry soil and is a large negative num-
ber, while a high matric or pressure potential refers to a wet soil with a small negative
value of h. A high potential would be –0.10 bar while a low potential would be –15
bars. On the other hand, low suction or tension refers to wet soil with a small positive
suction value. High suction or tension means a dry soil and is a large positive number;
i.e., a low suction is +0.10 bars and a high suction is +15 bars.
The main incentive for introducing soil water potential, hT, is to describe flow rela-
tions based on spatial differences in hT. For a non-equilibrium system, flow will occur
from a higher to a lower potential. Flow is influenced by additional factors and these
factors are often included as additional components for hT (e.g., Jury et al., 1991). In
particular, osmotic effects are often included as an additional osmotic potential com-
ponent. The osmotic potential is a significant component in saline soils. For coupled
flow processes consisting of flow due to osmotic gradients, temperature gradients,
pressure gradients, and other gradients, it is not necessary to define a total potential
which includes components for each independent part. In fact, Corey and Klute (1985)
showed that the inclusion of chemical effects can lead to contradictions with the no-
tion that flow occurs from regions of high to low potentials. (This does not complicate
the formulation of coupled flows, but simply says that the same transport coefficients
cannot be used for the independent gradient terms for each component.)
6.2.3 The Soil Water Retention Characteristic
As water is removed from a soil, the matric or pressure potential of the water re-
maining is decreased (algebraically, e.g., –1 is decreased to –10). If water is added to
the soil, the matric potential is increased (such as, –10 to –1). A curve showing the
functional relationship between matric potential and soil water content is known as the
soil water characteristic or retention curve. Soil water is usually expressed as volu-
metric water content θ or as volumetric percentage of water. When the relationship is
determined by drying a wet soil, the curve is known as either the desorption curve,
water retention curve, or water release curve. When the relationship is determined as a
dry soil wets, it is called the sorption or imbibition curve. The soil water characteristic
is related in an indirect way to the pore size distribution.
Water is retained in the soil by a combination of the attraction of particle surfaces
for water and the capillary action of water in the soil pores. The matric potential is
related to the curvatures of the air-water interfaces, which in turn are affected by the
soil pore geometry, the particle aggregation, and the soil water content. At high matric
potentials (near zero), most of the soil pores are filled with water and the total porosity
and pore size distribution greatly influence the water retained. Inasmuch as soil texture
dominates the total porosity and pore size distribution, it has a marked effect on the
soil water characteristic. In general, the higher the clay content of a soil, the higher
will be the water content at any given potential. Soil aggregation, especially for fine-
textured soils, tends to increase the number of large pores. Thus, soil structure is im-
portant in the amount of water retained at high potentials. When the large pores empty,
the water remaining in the soil is held in the smaller interaggregate pores and at the
particle contact points. As the soil dries, the amount of particle surface area also af-
fects the water retained, and this is strongly influenced by soil texture. Soil compac-
tion also influences the water characteristic because compaction results in smaller
pores, reduced total porosity, and increased interparticle contact in a given soil vol-
124 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

ume. It is usually the larger pores that are reduced most by compaction, so that the
influence of compaction is greater at higher potentials.
Examples of soil water characteristics for three soils of different textures are given
in Figure 6.1. Some common functional forms for describing this relation are pre-
sented in Figure 6.2 and Table 6.2. This table uses scaled water content, Θ, defined as
(θ – θr)/(θs – θr), where θs and θr are known as the saturated and residual water con-
tents, respectively. Water potential is scaled by a parameter α with units [1/L]: h* =
αh.
Residual water content, θr, may be thought of as water which cannot be withdrawn
from a soil by suction, but in practice is often a fitting parameter. Saturated water con-
tent, θs, is a measurable quantity which is usually less than soil porosity because of
entrapped air.

Figure 6.1. Generalized water retention


relations for three different textured soils.

Figure 6.2. Examples of various algebraic forms


for describing the soil water retention relationship.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 125

Table 6.2. Functional relationships for hydraulic characteristics.


Parameter
Function (and abbreviation) m kr = K/Ks Θ (h*) Relation
Gardner (1958) (GR) m>0 exp(h*) Θ = [exp(h*/2)(1–h*/2)]2/(m+2)
Θ p[1–
van Genuchten (1980)[a] (VG) 0<m<1 Θ = (1 + |h*|n)-m
(1 – Θ 1/m)m]2
Brooks and Corey (1964)[b] Θ = |h*|-m/(1-m) ; h* >1
m>0 Θv
(BC) = 1 ; 1< h* < 0
1 1 ⎡ ( m − 1)Θ ⎤
Broadbridge and White (1988) (m − 1)Θ 2 h* = 1 − + ln ⎢
(FBW)
m>1 Θ m ⎣ m − Θ ⎥⎦
(m − Θ )
[c]
Linear None Θ h* = ln Θ
[a]
Use p = 0.5 and commonly use n = 1/(1 – m).
[b]
Use v = 2m + 3 (sometimes v = 2m + 1 or 2m + 2).
[c]
Also may have kr(h) = dθ/dh.

The significance of the parameters α, n, and m used in Table 6.2 in connection with
the van Genuchten (1980) (abbreviated VG) and Brooks and Corey (1964) (BC) func-
tions can best be seen in Figure 6.3, which is a log-log plot of these retention relations
for specific values of m. The log slope of the asymptote is mn or m/(1 – m), often
called the pore-size distribution index, and n determines the degree of curvature in the
region near the intercept. The asymptote intercept is 1/α and is often referred to as the
air-entry head, he. As n becomes large, the shoulder curvature near he becomes
sharper, and the VG expression approaches the more simple BC relation as a limit.
It should be noted that the BC relation is a special case of the VG expression. A
generalized form of the BC relation, called the transitional Brooks-Corey relation
(TBC), has been introduced by Smith (1990). This is functionally equivalent to the VG
relation but retains the same parameters as the BC expression. The relation of m to n
often used in the VG expression (see Table 6.2) is not retained.

Figure 6.3. The parameters in the TBC or VG retention relation have


specific relationship to the shape of the curve, as illustrated here.
126 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

The term soil water capacity, C(h), refers to the slope (dθ/dh) of the soil water
characteristic at any point on the curve. This value represents the change in water con-
tent per unit change in matric potential and represents an important property for soil
water storage and release.
The soil water characteristic can be used to estimate the amount of water “released”
between any two potentials. Although the soil water potential largely determines the
ease with which a plant can obtain water, it is also important to know how much water
is in the soil at potentials above a given critical level. This, along with crop water re-
quirements, allows one to estimate the need for irrigation. The soil water potential will
decrease as a plant withdraws water. If hc is considered a critical level below which it
is not desired to deplete water, then the amount of water available at a potential h1, h1
> hc , will be θ(h1) – θ(hc). Many soils swell and shrink with wetting and drying, so
that all of the water does not come from a constant volume of soil. This is especially
important at high potentials where soil structure influences the characteristic.
6.2.3.1 Hysteresis. The soil water characteristics for sorption and desorption will
often differ because the water content in a soil at a given potential depends upon the
wetting and drying history of the soil. This history dependence in the relationship be-
tween potential and water content is called hysteresis. A schematic example of desorp-
tion and sorption curves for a soil is given in Figure 6.4. When the desorption curve is
obtained by drying an initially saturated sample and the sorption curve is obtained by
wetting an initially dry sample, the two moisture characteristics are known as the pri-
mary hysteresis loops or main branches (main drying curve, MD, and wetting curve,
MW, respectively). If the soil is not completely dry before rewetting or not completely
wet before drying, the resulting curves will fall between the two primary curves, and
they are known as scanning curves (wetting scanning curve, WS, and drying scanning
curve, DS). Wherever the starting point is within the main curves, a drying condition
will approach the MD curve, and a wetting condition will approach the MW curve.
At any given potential the water content will be greater in a drying soil (desorption)
than in a wetting soil (sorption). Field soil is rarely either completely wet before dry-
ing, or completely dry before wetting, so measured primary wetting or drying reten-

Figure 6.4. Definition diagram of the hysteresis loops


which can occur during wetting and drying of a soil.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 127

tion curves can be used only with reservation in interpreting soil water status. The
water content or potential can only be estimated from measurement of the water con-
tent and the main curves, unless the wetting history is accurately known. However, the
amount of error involved is relatively small, compared with other errors involved such
as soil variability, climatic changes, and plant variabilities. Excellent discussions of
hysteresis are given by Jury et al. (1991), Hillel (1971), and Nielsen et al. (1972).
6.2.3.2 Methods of determining the soil water characteristic. The soil water
characteristic is usually determined in the laboratory using tension tables or pressure
plates (Figure 6.5). In all of the techniques used, a porous membrane or plate hydrauli-
cally connects the soil water with water in the lower chamber. The pores in the mem-
brane are small enough that, under the imposed pressure, water but not air can pass
through. In all cases P1 > P2, so that water is forced from the soil into the lower cham-
ber. At equilibrium, the imposed pressure (expressed in suitable terms) can be consid-
ered as the potential of the water remaining in the soil.
For high potentials the membrane may be blotter paper, fine sand, sintered glass,
porous steel, or similar materials. In this case P1 is often atmospheric and P2 is ob-
tained with a hanging water column (Figure 6.5a) or with regulated vacuum. At lower
potentials of about –1 bar or less, the pores of these materials are too large to remain
water filled and air will pass through the membrane. A fine-pored ceramic is then used
as the membrane, P2 is atmospheric, and P1 is obtained with compressed gas, usually
air or nitrogen. Ceramic membranes are available with bubbling pressures of 100 bars
and more. The air entry value of the plate should be somewhat matched to the soil
water potential of interest as the finer-pored ceramics necessary for higher pressures
tend to restrict flow. In addition to porous ceramics, porous stainless steel and plastic
materials can be appropriate for the wet range.

Regulated
Pressure
Cover to prevent
evaporation

Soil Porous
P1 P1
Membrane Soil

P2

P2 =
Hanging atmospheric
Water
Column

Figure 6.5. Two methods of determining water retention relations


for a soil sample: (left) hanging column and (right) pressure plate.
128 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

In practice, a sample of soil is placed in the pressure chamber in a retaining ring


and saturated overnight. The desired pressure is then applied until outflow ceases and
the soil water is considered to be in equilibrium with the applied pressure. The amount
of water in the soil is then determined, usually by oven drying. The process is re-
peated, with a second sample being subjected to a different pressure. The resulting soil
water contents are plotted against applied pressure or vacuum, expressed as potential
units (usually cm or millibars) to form the water characteristic. Details of apparatus
and procedure are given in Dane and Topp (2002).
Because the pore size distribution has such a large influence on water retention at
high potentials, disturbed samples (dried and sieved) often give erroneous results. Use
of so-called undisturbed soil cores is preferable, but even with these, some error is
inevitable because of the swelling and shrinking that accompanies wetting and drying
of many soils. At low potentials (approaching –15 bars) the soil-specific surface domi-
nates water retention and the error introduced by using disturbed soil samples is quite
small.
Determining the approximate local soil water characteristic in the field may be
done at sites where both soil water potential and water content are measured, using
apparatus discussed below.
6.2.4 Approximate Soil Water Parameters
Field capacity and permanent wilting point once were considered to be soil water
constants. They are now recognized as very imprecise but qualitatively useful terms.
After infiltration ceases, water within the wetted portion of the profile will redis-
tribute under the influence of potential gradients. Downward movement is relatively
rapid at first, but decreases rapidly with time. Field capacity refers to the water con-
tent in a field soil after the drainage rate has become small and it estimates the net
amount of water stored in the soil profile for plant use. While field capacity was for-
merly accepted as a physical property characterizing each soil, now it is used as only a
very rough measure of the soil water content a few days after it has been wetted. For
most soils this is a near-optimum condition for growing plants. However, soil water
will continue to move downward for many days after irrigation. Figure 6.6 (Gardner et
al., 1970) is a good illustration of the continuous nature of profile water redistribution,
contradicting the idea of a definable point associated with this common term. Indeed,
Gardner et al. (1970), referring to their experiments, stated that “the soil exhibited
nothing resembling a field capacity.”
The field capacity concept is perhaps more applicable to coarse than to fine-
textured soils because in coarse soils most of the pores empty soon after irrigation and
the capillary conductivity becomes very small at relatively high potentials. Fine soils,
however, retain more water than coarse soils as well as drain longer at significant
rates. Any interface of soil layers will inhibit water movement across the interface
(more or less, depending on the relative hydraulic properties) and thus restrict redistri-
bution and increase apparent “field capacity” (see Section 6.5.1). Other factors that
may influence soil water redistribution rate are organic matter content, depth of wet-
ting, wetting history, and plant uptake pattern. Even the cultural practices are impor-
tant: for example, the appropriate “field capacity” for dryland farming on a soil is
probably much lower than for a frequently irrigated farming system.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 129

Figure 6.6. After irrigation, redistribution in a soil profile extends for many days,
as demonstrated here by measurements of Gardner et al. (1970).

The permanent wilting point is the soil water content below which plants growing
in the soil remain wilted even when transpiration is nearly eliminated. It represents a
condition where the rate of water supply to the plant roots is very low. The water con-
tent corresponding to the wilting point applies to the average water content of the bulk
soil and not to the soil adjacent to the root surfaces. The soil next to the root surfaces
will usually be drier than the bulk soil (Gardner, 1960), because water cannot move
toward the root surfaces fast enough to supply plant demands and a water content gra-
dient develops near the root.
Like field capacity, permanent wilting is not a soil constant nor a unique soil prop-
erty. There is no single soil water content at which plants cease to withdraw water.
However, for a given soil, the range of water contents for wilting may be quite small,
since soil water contents change little with matric potential at very low potentials.
Plant wilting is a function of demand as well as soil conditions: plants growing under
low atmospheric demand can dry soil to lower water contents than if the demand is
high, because more time is allowed for water to move through the soil to the roots.
When atmospheric demands are high, plants may temporarily wilt even though soil
water contents are considered adequate; an example is sugar beet wilting in midday
during the summer.
In the wilting range, almost all soil pores are empty of water and the water content
is determined largely by the specific surface area and the interparticle contact points.
The water content in soil subjected to a pressure potential of –15 bars is closely corre-
lated with the permanent wilting percentage for a wide range of soils (see Romano and
Santini, 2002). Because of its simplicity and the availability of reliable equipment, the
–15 bar percentage is now commonly used to estimate the permanent wilting point.
Formerly, sunflowers were the standard test plant used for determining permanent
wilting percentage (Romano and Santini, 2002).
The amount of water released by a soil between whatever is considered “field ca-
pacity” and permanent wilting is traditionally called the available water. The term
implies that the available water can be used by plants, but this is misleading. If the soil
water content approaches the wilting range, especially during periods of high atmos-
130 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

pheric demands for water or during flowering and pollination, the yield and/or quality
of most crops will decrease significantly. This concept is more important for dryland
agriculture than for irrigated conditions.
Inasmuch as the difference between field capacity and available water can be no
more meaningful than either of the terms, available water is only an estimate of the
amount of water a crop can use from a soil. Many farmers irrigate when the available
water has been depleted a certain amount, depending upon the crop. For high-water-
requiring crops such as potatoes, irrigation may be scheduled at 15% to 25% depletion
(85% to 75% available water remaining in the soil); for many other crops, the deple-
tion may go to 50% to 75% before irrigation. This bank-account type of irrigation ig-
nores any relation between depletion and water potential. For a given soil, the degree
of depletion allowed before irrigation may be roughly related to potential through the
characteristic curve. As with field capacity, available water is a useful concept, provid-
ing that its limitations are recognized, such as variations with soil depth, the influence
of climatic factors on evapotranspiration, and the effects of soil profile characteristics.
6.2.5 Methods for Characterizing Soil Water
The soil water characteristics at locations in the field may be obtained by water po-
tential measuring devices in combination with soil water measurement. Because of
natural soil variability and the variation in soil water content with wetting history (hys-
teresis), the field-determined water characteristic curve is not precise and is difficult to
duplicate. Sorption curves are more difficult and tedious to determine then desorption
curves because equilibrium is reached very slowly.
6.2.5.1 Measuring water content. Topp and Ferre (2002) and Rawlins (1976) have
discussed the various methods and associated error for measuring soil wetness. The
discussion here will be limited to those techniques considered most useful in the field.
Gravimetric. The accepted standard for soil water measurement is the gravimetric
method, which involves weighing a sample of moist soil, drying it to a constant weight
at a temperature of 105° to 110°C, and reweighing to determine the amount of water
lost on drying. The results are often expressed as the ratio of mass of water lost to
mass of dry soil. The required drying time depends upon the soil texture, soil wetness,
loading of the oven, sample size, whether the oven is a forced draft or convection type,
and other factors. Usually 24 h is sufficient but the required time is obtained by re-
peatedly weighing a sample after various periods of drying. Microwave ovens have
been used to reduce drying times (Horton et al., 1982).
The bulk density of soil may be measured by drying and weighing a known volume
of soil, or by using the clod, core, or excavation method (Grossman and Reinsch,
2002). The core method is the most commonly used. A cylindrical metal sampler of a
known volume is forced into the soil at the desired depth. The resulting soil core is
dried and the bulk density is found by dividing the mass by the volume of the cylinder.
Samples may be taken at successive depths from the surface by cleaning out the sam-
ple hole to the desired depths with an auger and then forcing the sampler into the soil
at the bottom of the hole. Alternatively, samples may be taken in a trench by forcing
the sampler into the soil horizontally at the desired depth. Obviously, this latter
method involves more labor but the sampling zones can be better observed. Excellent
core samplers are available commercially.
Neutron scattering. The neutron scattering procedure to estimate soil water content
has gained wide acceptance in recent years. A source of high energy or fast neutrons is
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 131

lowered to the desired soil depth into a previously installed access tube. Radium-
beryllium has been used, but current equipment uses americium. The fast neutrons are
emitted into the soil and gradually lose energy by collision with various atomic nuclei.
Hydrogen, present almost entirely in soil water, is the most effective element in the
soil in slowing down the neutrons. Thus, the degree of the slowing down of neutrons
is a measure of the soil water content. The slowed or thermalized neutrons form a
cloud around the source and some of these randomly return to the detector, causing
ionization of the gas within the detector and creating an electrical pulse. The number
of such pulses is measured over a given interval of time with a scalar or the rate of
pulsation can be measured with a ratemeter. The count rate is almost linearly related to
the water content.
When not in use the radiation source is housed in a shield that contains a material
high in hydrogen, such as polyethylene. This material serves as a standard by which
proper operation of the instrument can be verified. Inasmuch as instrument variations
and source decay occur, it is more satisfactory to use the count ratio method rather
than just a count. The ratio of sample count/standard count is plotted versus water con-
tent. This eliminates any systematic errors due to instrumentation that may vary from
day to day. The volume of soil measured depends upon the energy of the initial fast
neutrons and upon the wetness of the soil. With the americium-beryllium source the
volume of soil measured is a sphere of about 150 mm diameter in a wet soil and up to
500 mm or more in a dry soil (Grossman and Reinsch, 2002).
Neutron scattering has some advantages over the gravimetric method because re-
peated measurements may be made at the same location and depth, thus minimizing
the effect of soil variability on successive measurements. It also determines water con-
tent on a volume basis, with the measured soil volume influenced by the instrument
used, the soil type, and wetness. Disadvantages of neutron scattering are the initial
high investment in equipment, the time required per site because of the need to install
access tubes, and the training, licensing, and testing required for possession of a radio-
active device. Also, measurements near the soil surface are not accurate because neu-
trons are lost through the surface, and it is difficult to accurately detect any sharp de-
lineation such as a wetting front or soil layering effect.
The manufacturer usually supplies a calibration curve, but one should verify
whether it applies to a given soil. If changes in water content are desired, rather than
absolute values, a single curve is more widely applicable because the bias will be the
same in successive readings. Two calibration procedures have been used: field calibra-
tion in natural soil profiles, and laboratory calibration in large prepared soil standards.
Calibration should be done with the same type of access tubes as used in the field. For
details of the method, see Topp (2002).
Time domain reflectometry (TDR). This is a relatively new technique used to meas-
ure volumetric soil water content and soil bulk salinity based on the high-frequency elec-
trical properties of soil and water. It offers a variety of advantages including rapid, reli-
able, and repeatable measurements with a minimum of soil disturbance. In theory, TDR
requires no calibration and the soil moisture determination is independent of soil texture,
structure, salinity, density, or temperature. In reality, calibration may be necessary for
different soil types and TDR probes. Additionally, soil salinity can be evaluated with the
technique. More than 50 papers discussing the state-of-the-art developments in TDR are
published in the proceedings of a 1994 conference (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1994).
132 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

A B
+3000

Voltage

0
TDR C

Coaxial -3000
cable t1 t2
Time

Soil surface

Lp TDR probe

Waveguide
Figure 6.7. (a) Installation diagram for time domain reflectometry (TDR) measurement of
surface soil water content. (b) The instrument trace and its interpretation, discussed in text.

TDR refers to both the overall technique and to the electronic device that generates
and measures the electrical signal used to measure the soil water content and salinity. A
sketch of a typical TDR probe is given in Figure 6.7a. It consists of a coaxial cable, han-
dle, and two or three parallel metal rods. The metal rods are also referred to as
waveguides.
A voltage pulse is sent down a cable and the returning signal monitored over time.
The velocity of the electrical pulse is proportional to the dielectric coefficient (κ) of
the soil in contact with the probes. κ is a dimensionless ratio related to the degree of
orientation of dipoles in a material when subjected to an oscillating electric field (see
Table 6.3 for some typical values of κ). For soil, κ is considered independent of den-
sity, texture, structure, temperature, salts (not necessarily true at very low water con-
tents), and others. This is mainly because changes in κ due to changes in water content
are very large compare to changes in κ for the other common constituents in soils. As
a result, it is possible to create a calibration curve relating κ to soil water content.
Topp et al. (1980) conducted a number of experiments to relate the dielectric constant
of a wide variety soil types to volumetric water content. They found a close fit for a
variety of soils and soil-like materials using a single polynomial equation:
θ = –5.3 × 10-2 + 2.9 × 10-2 κ – 5.5 × 10-4 κ2 + 4.3 × 10-6 κ3 (6.5)
This calibration curve is still used, but recent work confirms that it is best to make a
calibration curve for each soil and probe to get an optimal fit.
Table 6.3. Typical values of dielectric coefficient κ.
Material κ (dimensionless)
Perfect metal conductor ∞
Water 70 to 80
Dry soils 2 to 5
Perfect vacuum 1
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 133

The velocity, vs, of the electromagnetic wave as it travels through the soil is related
to the dielectric constant κ by

vs = c κ-0.5 (6.6)
where c is the velocity of light. vs is defined as twice the physical length of the probes
(2Lp) divided by the time (2ts) for the wave to travel the length of the probe and back,
so that
2
⎛ ct ⎞
κ =⎜ s ⎟ (6.7)
⎜ Lp ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Therefore, the dielectric constant is a function of the speed of light, the length of the
probe, and the wave travel time.
The art of finding soil water content with TDR is in knowing how to find the two
distance end points on the trace. An ideal trace is given as Figure 6.7b. Point t1 repre-
sents the time when the signal enters the soil and t2 the time when the wave has trav-
eled to the end of the probe and back to the soil surface. For locating t1 and t2, some
users choose to pick the numerical maxima and minima of the trace. For purposes of
automation and for noisy signals, special procedures are adapted for identifying points
on the trace. Also shown on Figure 6.7b is a voltage height C. The value of C is re-
lated to the effective conductivity and hence to soil salinity. For nonsaline conditions,
recovery height C is nearly to the same level as at t1; for a saline condition the height
C will be less. The analysis of the trace in this manner allows for the simultaneous
determination of water content and salinity
Other methods. The attenuation of a beam of gamma rays of known intensity
passed through a soil column is related to the mass of material through which the
beam passes. If the soil bulk density remains constant or varies in a known way, the
water content may be inferred, or if the water content is known, the soil bulk density
may be inferred. This technique has been used primarily in laboratory studies, al-
though a double-tube attenuation unit has been commercially developed for use in the
field (Reginato and Van Bavel, 1964). It is potentially accurate but only for carefully
controlled conditions.
Transient heat pulse measurements have long been used to evaluate soil thermal
properties. Water content is closely related to thermal properties. In particular, the
volumetric heat capacity, ρc, is a sum of that due to the water present and the dry soil
matrix:
ρc = ρw θ cw + ρb cm (6.8)
where ρw = density of the water
ρb = density of the bulk soil
θ = volumetric water content
cw = mass specific heat of the water
cm = mass specific heat of the dry soil.
The value of ρc is found using principles of Fourier heat flow to match temperature
rise due to an applied heat pulse. Thus, if the properties of the dry soil are known, then
θ follows. A commercially available device is available similar to that described by
Bristow et al. (1993).
134 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

6.2.5.2 Measuring soil water potential. It is often desirable to measure soil water
potential in addition to, or instead of, soil water content. The estimation of soil water
potential from water content data via the characteristic curve may not be sufficiently
accurate.
Tensiometer. Tensiometers are widely used for measuring the higher ranges of soil
water potential in the field and laboratory. The name is derived from the term “ten-
sion” that was initially applied to the energy of retention of soil water. Many commer-
cial models are available, or the necessary parts can be purchased and assembled at a
significant savings. The theory and use of tensiometers have been discussed by Young
and Sisson (2002).
Schematic diagrams of tensiometers are shown in Figure 6.8. A tensiometer con-
sists of a porous ceramic cup filled with water and connected through a water-filled
tube to a suitable vacuum measuring device. The cup, when saturated with water, must
be capable of withstanding air pressures of about 1 bar without leaking air. For normal
field applications, the vacuum is measured with a reliable vacuum gauge (Bourdon
type). For special conditions where rapid response time is needed, the vacuum meas-
urement is made with pressure transducers and almost no water flow through the cup
is required. The pressure transducers can also be used to continuously record the vac-
uum in the tensiometer, and to read many tensiometers through a switching system.
Tensiometers have been used as sensors for automating irrigation systems to maintain
a desired soil water range. Tensiometers fitted with a septum and read with a portable
pressure transducer attached to a hypodermic needle are also commercially available
(see Young and Sisson, 2002).
The major criticism of the tensiometer is that it functions reliably only in the wetter
soil range at potentials of about –0.8 bar or higher, and its range is limited by the depth

Pressure transducer

Removable air-tight cap

Vacuum guage

Barrel

Porous cup

Figure 6.8. Two types of tensiometer, using a gauge (left) or a pressure transducer (right).
With multiple tensiometers, readings may be taken by a single transducer
with a needle through septums.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 135

of installation. At lower potentials the water inside the tensiometer vaporizes (boils)
and readings are not reliable. In drier sandy soils, when hydraulic conductivities are
very low, tensiometers may not function properly. Soil water flow away from the cup
as the soil dries may be so slow that hydraulic equilibrium with the bulk soil will not
be achieved. Under such conditions the bulk soil water potential may be much lower
than the tensiometer indicates. If it is necessary to measure water potentials at great
depths, tensiometers equipped with integral pressure transducers can be used and only
electrical leads need come to the soil surface (Watson, 1967).
Porous ceramic blocks. The water content of porous blocks in equilibrium with the
soil water may also be used as an approximate measure of soil water potential or soil
water content. Two electrodes are imbedded within a gypsum block and the resistance
between them measured with an AC ohmmeter (alternating current is used to prevent
polarization). Modern resistance blocks utilize an inert material saturated with gyp-
sum. The effect of soil solution salinity levels is masked because the electrolyte within
the block is essentially a saturated solution of calcium sulfate. Gypsum blocks are
relatively cheap and easy to use. Several companies supply them, as well as inexpen-
sive resistance meters. Even though the accuracy is not good, they do indicate soil
water conditions qualitatively and can monitor changes in θ (Topp and Ferre, 2002).
Psychrometric methods. A detailed discussion of the use of psychrometry to meas-
ure water potential has been given by Andraski and Scanlon (2002). The technique
measures the sum of the matric and osmotic potentials. The method most widely
adopted for in situ measurement of soil water potential is the measurement of wet-bulb
temperature, with a small thermocouple serving as the wet bulb. Water is condensed
on the thermocouple by passing a current through it to cool it below the dew point by
the Peltier effect. The current is then removed and the wet-bulb temperature is meas-
ured. Ambient temperature is also measured with the same thermocouple to allow cor-
rections to be made for temperature effects on the calibration curve. Units are cali-
brated against potentials of standard solutions. This technique is most useful for meas-
urement of very low potentials, since the dew point temperature is very near to ambi-
ent (i.e., high relative humidity) at high potentials.
6.3 SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
6.3.1 Conductivity and Darcy’s Law
The basic relationship for describing soil water movement was derived from ex-
periments by Darcy who found in 1856 that the flow rate in porous materials is di-
rectly proportional to the hydraulic gradient. This relation was originally set forth by
Buckingham (1907), although it is better known as Darcy’s law (Swartzendruber,
1969), and may be written as:
ΔH
q = −K (6.9)
Δs
where q is the volume of water moving through the soil in the s-direction per unit area
per unit time and ΔH/Δs is the hydraulic gradient in the same direction. The propor-
tionality factor, K, is the hydraulic conductivity, which depends on properties of both
the fluid and the porous medium. H is the hydraulic head which is the sum of the pres-
sure head, h, and the elevation head, z (Section 6.2.2). The negative sign in Equation
6.9 indicates flow is in the direction of decreasing H.
136 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

Figure 6.9. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity as a function of water potential


(left) and water content (right). As illustrated, Ks is less than the fully saturated
conductivity since soil naturally traps a small quantity of air within its pores.

For a saturated soil K is constant, but for regions of the soil which are only partially
saturated the hydraulic conductivity varies significantly with water content, K = K(θ).
Since θ is a function of h, we may also write K = K(h). Recall that H = h + z (Section
6.2.2) where z is the vertical distance from the datum. Then for flow in the vertical
direction,
⎛ dh ⎞ dh
q = − K ( h)⎜ + 1⎟ = − K ( h ) − K (h) (6.10)
⎝ dz ⎠ dz
We noted earlier (Section 6.2.3) that soils are usually not completely saturated in
nature because of air entrapment during the wetting process. Thus, even for apparently
saturated regions below the water table the volumetric water content may not be equal
to total porosity, but to θs, the water content at residual air saturation. The value of K
corresponding to θs is Ks (Figure 6.9, right), which may still be considered constant in
regions below the water table and is sometimes referred to as the apparent saturated
conductivity. Further discussions will assume Ks is effective saturated hydraulic con-
ductivity.
6.3.2 Measuring Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Various methods for measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity in the field have
been described in detail by Reynolds et al. (2002). There are methods suitable for soils
with high water tables, similar to well pumping methods for obtaining aquifer trans-
missivities, and other methods suitable for unsaturated soils. The reader is referred to
Reynolds et al. (2002) or to Bouwer and Jackson (1974) for details concerning these
methods. Again all of these methods provide measurement of Ks at a point, so, due to
field variability, numerous measurements may be required to obtain a field effective
Ks value. Further, some methods measure the approximate horizontal conductivity,
which may differ significantly from the vertical conductivity.
6.3.3 Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity
For unsaturated soils the water moves primarily in small pores and through films
located around and between solid particles. As the water content decreases, the cross-
sectional area of the films also decreases and the flow paths become more limited. The
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 137

result is a hydraulic conductivity function that decreases very rapidly with water con-
tent as shown schematically in Figure 6.9(right). Several functions for this relation
were given above in Table 6.2.
In most cases hysteresis in the K(θ) relationship is small. However, when K = K(h)
is used as in Equation 6.10, shown in Figure 6.9(left), hysteresis may be pronounced
due to hysteresis in the h(θ) relationship (Figure 6.4).
6.3.4 Measuring Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity
The measurement of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is considerably more diffi-
cult than measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity. Since the K value is dependent
on water content, both the hydraulic gradient and water content or potential must be
determined for a range of water contents to adequately define the hydraulic conductiv-
ity function. Most of the reported measurements for unsaturated soils have been con-
ducted in the laboratory where boundary conditions can be carefully controlled and
soil water content and flow rates precisely measured. Field measurements have also
been reported but are much more difficult because of the number of variables that
must be measured and the variability of soil in the field.
A major problem with both field and laboratory methods for determining K(θ) is
the time and expense required. Measurement of a single K(θ) function by a well
trained technician may require several days. Furthermore, several measurements may
be needed to adequately characterize K(θ) for a given soil type because of field vari-
ability of the soil properties.
6.3.4.1 Laboratory methods. Clothier and Scotter (2002) describe steady state
methods for measuring K(θ) based on the defining relationship given in Equation 6.10.
Essentially the method consists of setting up boundary conditions to obtain steady,
one-directional flow for adjustable pressure heads. In one method, a soil sample is
placed in an airtight cavity between two horizontal porous plates through which water
flows into and out of the sample. The average pressure head in the sample is con-
trolled by the air pressure in the cavity. The mean hydraulic gradient between two
points in the sample is determined by using tensiometers to measure the difference in
pressure head. Alternatively, the potential and the potential gradient may be controlled
by changing the elevations of the water source and the outlet. In either case, by meas-
uring the steady state flow rate, q, the conductivity may be calculated directly from
Equation 6.9. Then the potential is changed and the procedure repeated for another
value of pressure head.
Although simple in concept, this method has some disadvantages. Since soil con-
ductivities are small in general, particularly at the lower water contents, long times are
required to approach steady flow, especially for imbibition. Also the conductivity
function obtained using the above method represents a point determination, or at most
a determination for a sampled soil section. In order to incorporate some of the hetero-
geneities of natural soils in the conductivity function, it is better if conductivity deter-
minations can be made on several rather large soil samples.
Transient methods utilize a controlled boundary condition with careful measure-
ments during water movement to infer conductivity relationships by optimization with
solution of Richards’ equations. A good example of such methods is described by
Hudson et al. (1996), in which upward flow into a cylindrical soil sample is caused by
a fixed flux at the lower boundary, and water content and tension measurements are
made with TDR and tensiometer methods, respectively.
138 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

6.3.4.2 Field methods. A method originally described by Nielsen et al. (1964) (also
called the instantaneous profile method) has been frequently used (e.g., Nielsen et al.,
1973; Cassel, 1974) to determine K(θ) and h(θ) for soils. Water is applied to saturate
the surface of a field plot approximately 2 to 4 m square. After a predetermined
amount of water has infiltrated, usually 50 to 150 mm, application is ceased and the
plot covered with plastic film to prevent evaporation from the surface. Changes in soil
water pressure head during subsequent redistribution of the infiltrated water are meas-
ured using tensiometers located at 150-mm depth increments to a total depth of about
1.5 m below the surface. Changes in the soil water content with time are inferred from
tensiometer readings and the soil water characteristics. The soil water characteristics
are obtained from cores taken at each tensiometer depth. The flux at a given depth is
calculated from changes in the soil water contents above that depth. Then the hydrau-
lic gradient is determined directly from tensiometer readings and the conductivity cal-
culated from Equation 6.10.
Tension infiltrometer or disc permeameter. Figure 6.10 schematically illustrates a
disk permeameter. Like the ring infiltrometer, water is applied to a small circular area,
but the water is applied under a small tension and no guard ring is used (Hussen and
Warrick, 1994). The mariotte siphon is an integral part of the device, controlling the
entry water potential, and the disk has a fine nylon mesh surface through which water
passes to the soil. Small irregularities in the undisturbed soil surface are dealt with by
a shallow layer of fine sand which forms a contact interface. The tension may be ad-
justed from 10 or 20 up to 150 mm. An alternative arrangement, using a ring with
minimum soil penetration, allows use of the same device for application at zero to

Nylon Screen Air Inlet

Figure 6.10. Schematic of a tension infiltrometer or disk permeameter. The column


at right controls the air pressure at the entrance to the supply tube at center, and
thus controls the water pressure at the disk/soil interface.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 139

small positive heads. The radially symmetric flow under the permeameter is analyzed
by using the method of Wooding (1968). The method can obtain local estimates of Ks
for soils that approach steady flow quickly, and can obtain points on the K(h) curve
only for soils with low values of he. Discussion of application and data analysis for
this device is given in Smith et al. (2002).
Borehole permeameters. Similar to the disk permeameter, this method employs a
constant head point source at some depth in the soil, which may be the bottom of a
bore. The Guelph permeameter is one such device (Reynolds and Elrick, 2002), and
another has been introduced by Shani et al. (1987). These methods are used in con-
junction with analytic solutions for three-dimensional flow, and can estimate K(h) for
homogeneous soils and a specific K(h) relation.
6.3.4.3 Calculation of K(θ) from the soil water characteristic. To evade the dif-
ficulty of directly measuring K(θ), numerous attempts have been made to formulate a
computational scheme so that the partial or unsaturated hydraulic conductivity may be
estimated through the knowledge of other soil properties that are easier to measure.
Such properties should be representative of the geometry of pores and their distribu-
tion in space. Since the microscopic structure of a porous medium is too complicated
to deal with in exact mathematical terms, simplifying assumptions are necessary. Ko-
sugi et al. (2002) has presented a good review of these methods. The fundamental ap-
proach, as explained by Mualem (1974), is that the soil retention curve is an analog for
the distribution of pore radii that are effective in the flow of water at any overall water
content, and that the flow in those filled pores may be described by analogy to a lami-
nar Hagen-Poisouille formula. In terms of an effective pore radius, re, and an effective
area of flowing pores, ae, the general formula can be expressed as follows:

∫ re dae
2

filled _ pores
K r (θ) = (6.11)
∫ re 2 dae
all _ pores

where Kr is relative hydraulic conductivity, K/Ks. The relations for K(h) shown in Ta-
ble 6.2 for Brooks and Corey (1964) and van Genuchten (1980) come from applica-
tions of such formulas.
6.4 WATER MOVEMENT IN SOIL
6.4.1 Mass Balance and Flow Equations
The Darcy-Buckingham flux equations (6.9 or 6.10) are adequate for steady flow in
unsaturated soils, but steady flow is not the common condition. To describe the dy-
namics of soil water, these equations must be combined with an expression for dy-
namic mass balance to obtain what is commonly called Richards’ equation (Richards,
1931):
∂θ
= −∇ ⋅ q + e (6.12)
∂t
where q is the flux vector, ∇ ⋅ represents the divergence operation (generalized spatial
differentiation) and e is a gain/loss term representing root uptake (–), for example.
140 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

For flow in the vertical z direction only, Equation 6.12 may be written as
∂θ ∂q
=− +e (6.13)
∂t ∂z
This expression is combined with Equation 6.10 to obtain the more common form of
Richards’ equation:
∂θ ∂ ⎡ ∂ h⎤ ∂ K
= ⎢ K (h) ⎥ + +e (6.14)
∂t ∂z ⎣ ∂ z⎦ ∂ z

Water content θ may be made the independent variable by substituting the soil wa-
ter diffusivity, D(θ) ≡ K(h) dh/dθ. Using this variable the equation takes the form of a
nonlinear diffusion equation:
∂θ ∂ ⎡ ∂ θ⎤ ∂ K
= ⎢ D(θ ) ⎥ + +e (6.15)
∂t ∂z⎣ ∂ z⎦ ∂ z

These equations are nonlinear because of the functional dependence of the coeffi-
cients, D(θ) or K(h). Given the soil water capacity, C(h), defined above, the variables
D(θ) and K(h) are related by D = K/C. Both parameters vary markedly with water con-
tent or pressure head as discussed in Section 6.2.3. The significant nonlinearity of the
soil parameters is the prime source of difficulty in solving the equation for agricultural
water flow conditions.
Note that use of Equation 6.14 assumes that there is no resistance to soil air move-
ment and the air pressure remains constant throughout the profile. It is also usually
assumed that the soil matrix is rigid and does not change with time, so that the soil
water characteristic and hydraulic conductivity relationships are not time variant.
These assumptions do not always hold and may cause significant errors in predicted
results, as will be discussed below.
6.4.1.1 Two- and three-dimensional flow. In several types of irrigation, water is
delivered to a point, a line, or a confined region representing only a small fraction of
the total surface area. Examples include trickle and furrow irrigation, subsurface irri-
gation, and bubbler systems with a separate outlet for individual trees or shrubs. Once
the water enters the soil, the flow is governed by gravity and capillarity, just as for the
one-dimensional cases
Solutions to water flow equations in two and three dimensions have been found for
a variety of point and line source geometries. One of the simplest, but still useful, is
the solution for a steady point source that is “buried” in a uniform soil and assuming a
hydraulic conductivity to be an exponential of the pressure head (Table 6.2). The solu-
tion is (Philip, 1968; Warrick, 2003)

ϕb ( R, z ) =
K s exp(αh)
α
=
2
q
2 0 . 5
⎛ ⎡

(
exp⎜⎜ 0.5α ⎢ z − R 2 + z 2 )
0.5 ⎤ ⎞
⎥ ⎟⎟
⎦⎠
(6.16)
8π( R + z ) ⎝
where ϕb = matric flux potential
Ks = saturated conductivity
α = m from Table 6.2
h = pressure head
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 141
3
q = source strength [L /T]
z = depth below the source
R = cylindrical radius from the source.
For any value of z and R, Equation 6.16 can be used to find the pressure head h.
The pressure head distribution based on Equation 6.16 is shown as Figure 6.11a for
Ks = 15 mm h-1 and α = 0.0050 mm-1 after Or (1995). The wettest soil (h—> 0) is near
the source, i.e., at R = z =0. The contours away from the source, –0.6, –0.7, –0.8, are
somewhat elliptical shaped and reach a deeper depth than radius due to the influence
of gravity.
In Figure 6.11b results are calculated assuming a point source at the surface rather
than buried. This solution is
K s exp(αh)
α
= 2ϕb ( x, y ) −
αq exp(αz ) ⎛


(
E1 ⎜⎜ 0.5α ⎢ z − R 2 + z 2 ⎥ ⎟⎟

)
0.5 ⎤ ⎞

⎦⎠
(6.17)

where ϕb(x,y) is calculated for the buried source from Equation 6.16 and E1 is the ex-
ponential integral function (e.g., Abramowitz and Stegun, 1964, Equation 5.1.1). The
wettest region is now on the surface near the source. The contours are similar to ellip-
ses descending into the profile, but with the tops truncated. For the deeper depths, the
pressure heads are very similar to those for the buried source. For example, at a depth
0.7 m below the source, the values of h in each case is between –0.7 and –0.8 with the
surface point source showing a slightly wetter result (i.e., closer to the –0.7 contour
than for the buried source).
For more complex geometries and time-dependent cases, it is generally necessary
to go to purely numerical solutions. Computer packages to do this have generally be-
come much more available and easier to use with increasing use of microcomputers.
For example, HYDRUS-2D (Simunek and van Genuchten, 1999) is widely used.

Radial Distance (m) Radial Distance (m)


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4
0.3 0.0

Head (m)
0.1 -0.2
0.2
0.0 0.0
Depth (m)

-0.1 -0.4 -0.2


-0.4
-0.3 -0.6 -0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-0.5 -0.8
-1.2
A B
-0.7 -1.0
Figure 6.11. Steady-state distribution of soil water pressure head for
(a) buried and (b) surface point sources (after Or, 1995; Warrick, 2003).
142 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

6.4.2 The Infiltration Process


Infiltration, usually defined as the surface entry of water into the soil profile, is a
process of great practical importance to irrigation design. Failure to adequately con-
sider the infiltration process may result in nonuniform distribution of water in the field
as well as excessive water loss due to deep percolation or runoff. For surface irriga-
tion, the most efficient furrow or border length depends in part on the infiltration ca-
pacity. Many of the soil-related factors that control infiltration also govern soil water
movement and distribution during and after the infiltration process. Hence, an under-
standing of infiltration and the factors affecting it is important to the design and opera-
tion of efficient irrigation systems.
6.4.2.1 Infiltrability. Consider a hypothetical experiment with a water depth main-
tained on the surface to create infiltration into a deep, homogeneous soil column with
a uniform initial water content. The flux or the rate water enters the soil surface is
called the infiltration rate, f. If ponded water is maintained on the surface, we will find
that f decreases with time as shown schematically in Figure 6.12. This decrease is due
to reduction in the hydraulic gradients in the soil, but in nature may also be affected by
soil changes such as surface sealing and crusting. If the experiment is continued for a
sufficiently long time the infiltration rate will approach a constant rate, fz. For homo-
geneous soil profiles fz is for practical purposes equal to Ks, the hydraulic conductivity
at residual air saturation. For layered or surface-crusted profiles, fz is different than Ks,
as discussed below.
Since water is always ponded on the surface in our hypothetical experiment, the in-
filtration rate is limited only by soil-related factors. At any time during infiltration the
maximum rate that water will infiltrate, as limited by soil properties, has often been
called the infiltration capacity of the soil, fc. Hillel (1971) noted that the term capacity
is generally used to denote an amount or volume and can be misleading when applied
to a time-rate process. He proposed the term soil infiltrability rather than infiltration
capacity, and we employ that terminology here.

Figure 6.12. Time dependency of infiltration flux under two supply rates. Although
the amounts are equal, the lower rate succeeds in putting more water in the soil,
which is the area defined by r – f.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 143

Now consider the same soil column as described above with irrigation water or
rainfall applied at a constant rate, r, to the surface. For this case the infiltration rate
will initially be equal to r and is limited by the application rate rather than the soil
head gradient. As long as the application rate is less than the infiltrability, the infiltra-
tion rate will be controlled by the application rate; f = r. However, if r is sufficiently
greater than fz or Ks, the infiltrability may become less than r after a period of time.
Then the infiltration rate will again be controlled by the soil profile and water will
pond on the surface. The infiltration patterns for two rates r are shown in Figure 6.12.
Water supplied in excess of the infiltrability will become available for surface storage
and/or runoff. Ponding or runoff cannot occur when r < Ks, unless by saturating the
soil above a restrictive layer or a high water table.
The infiltration rate is normally expressed in units of depth of water per unit time
(or volume per unit area per unit time), e.g., mm/h. Cumulative infiltration, I = I(t), is
the total amount of water infiltrated at any time t since the start of application, and
may be expressed as:
t

I (t ) = f (t ) dt (6.18)
0
where f is the infiltration rate which may or may not be equal to infiltrability, as dis-
cussed above.
The soil water distribution during ponded infiltration into a uniform unsaturated
soil profile will be approximately as shown by the dotted line in Figure 6.13. Only the
surface will be saturated, and water content will decrease with depth toward a rela-
tively sharp front known as the wetting front. Viewed through the side of a glass con-
tainer, this wetting front appears to be a sharp line, but is in fact a transition not distin-
guishable by eye. The soil often will not be completely saturated behind the wetting
front, in some places, due to air entrapment and possible local counterflow of the air
phase.

Figure 6.13. Typical shapes of water after a uniform infiltration event,


as well as the shapes after a period of distribution.
144 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

One class of formulas to describe infiltration are those derived by using Darcy’s
law (Equation 6.10), plus an expression of mass balance at the soil surface, with ap-
propriate simplifying assumptions on the hydraulic soil characteristics. These are dis-
cussed in detail by Smith et al. (2002). The most well known of this class of infiltra-
tion equations is that of Green and Ampt (1911). This equation was first derived by a
more simple conceptual approach, and originally dealt with ponded upper boundary
conditions alone. It arises from Equation 6.15 by assuming that D(θ) is a step function,
constant within the wetting zone. This allows integration of Equation 6.15 to obtain:
Δθ (G + d ) + I
fc = K s (6.19)
I
0
where G = effective capillary drive: G = ∫ k r (h)dh (6.20)
−∞
d = depth of water on the surface
kr = relative conductivity, K(h)/Ks
Δθ = (θs – θi), which is the saturation deficit, or the available water storage in
the profile.
G is an important integral measure of the capillary suction of a soil. From its defini-
tion, one can see that it can be thought of as the kr-weighted mean value of capillary
potential, plus the surface water driving head. Generalized values of G for various soil
types have been presented by Woolhiser et al. (1990).
Note that in Equation 6.19 infiltrability is expressed in terms of infiltrated depth I.
While in many cases one would find it more convenient to have fc(t), the expression of
fc in terms of I is significant for two reasons. First, it unifies the calculation of infiltra-
bility for both sprinkling (or rainfall) and ponding conditions. Second, it allows calcu-
lation of ponding and subsequent infiltrability patterns with a single function. Higher
application rates cause ponding for smaller values of I, and vice versa. The ponding
depth, Ip, can be found by substituting r for f in Equation 6.19 and solving for I = Ip.
For subsequent times, as long as rate r > f, the infiltrability is described by this equa-
tion. Over the last decades several investigators have verified that ponding times can
be accurately modeled by relating rainfall rates to infiltrated depths (Mein and Larson,
1973; Reeves and Miller, 1975; Smith and Parlange, 1978).
Infiltration relations with physical meaning have been presented by Smith and Par-
lange (1978) and Philip (1957), as well as Green and Ampt (1911) (abbreviated G-A).
These are summarized in Table 6.4 in dimensionless terms using simple scaling rela-
tions. These scaling functions (Smith et al., 2002) are as follows:
f
f* = (6.21a)
Ks

I
I* = (6.21b)
GΔθ

tK s
t* = (6.21c)
GΔθ
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 145

The step function D(θ) assumption (G-A) is most appropriate for relatively coarse
soils and relatively uniform particle size distributions, and represents one limiting type
of soil behavior. At the other end of the spectrum of soil hydraulic behavior are well
graded soils which may exhibit roughly exponential behavior of D(θ) in the region
near saturation (Parlange et al., 1982). This assumption leads from Equation 6.18 to
the infiltration relation of Smith and Parlange (1978) (abbreviated S-P) (Table 6.4).
Philip (1957) was the first to deal with solutions to the Richards’ equation, and solved
Equation 6.19 for surface ponding conditions using a series expansion. He also pro-
duced an approximate infiltration equation, by truncating the series solution. Because
of the truncation it is not as accurate an approximation as others except at very small
or very large times. The Philip expression, using scaled terms defined above, is also
given in Table 6.4. These expressions are compared graphically in Figure 6.14.
The region between the S-P and the G-A expression is where the infiltration curves
for most soils, ideally, should lie. The relative error of the truncated series of Philip in
the intermediate values of I is apparent in Figure 6.14, but the expressions are gener-
ally in agreement. Since many irrigation applications are simple in terms of time varia-
tion, an expression of fc(to) (to being opportunity time) is often useful. For that pur-

Table 6.4. Scaled forms of several analytically derived infiltration capacity functions.
Base Infiltration Relationships
Equation fc*(t*) fc*(I*) I*(t*)
t* (1 − α ) = t* (1 − α ) =
Smith- α
Parlange 1 ⎛⎜ f c* − 1 + α ⎞⎟ ⎛ f c * ⎞ f c* = 1 +
⎜ ⎟ I * ) − 1 I − ln⎜
⎛ exp(αI * ) − 1 + α ⎞
ln⎜ ⎟ − ln⎜ ⎟
exp( α * ⎜ ⎟⎟
and α ⎝ f c* − 1 ⎠ ⎝ f c* − 1 ⎠ ⎝ α ⎠
Green-
Ampt[a] 1 2 I* + 1
Philip f c* = 1 + f c* = I * = t* + 2t*
2t* 2 I* + 1 − 1
[a]
0 <α < 1: Approaches a G-A relation for α near 0, and a S-P relation when α is near 1 (Parlange et al., 1982).

Figure 6.14. Log-log plots of three analytic infiltration functions


from Table 6.4, relating scaled infiltrability, fc*, to scaled infiltrated depth, I*.
146 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

Figure 6.15. Infiltrability for a few hypothetical soils of different textures. Infiltra-
bility for a soil of any texture can vary significantly from this idealized example.

pose, a rather simple time explicit expression which mimics either of the analytic
forms and uses the same parameters can be written (Smith et al., 2002):

1
f c* = β + + (1 − β ) 2 (6.22)
2to*

The weighting parameter β is best at approximately 1/3, and is 1.0 for the Philip
expression. Another similar form is given in Smith et al. (2002)
6.4.2.2 Application rates. For sprinkler irrigation, application rates should be
selected so that surface runoff does not occur, if possible. This is usually ensured by
choosing an application rate that is less than or equal to the steady state infiltration
capacity, fz. While this procedure will work for some cases, there are many situations
in which the steady final infiltration rate is prohibitively small. For example, a soil that
has a restricting layer below the surface may have a steady state infiltration rate of
nearly zero yet be capable of large intake rates during the first stages of infiltration.
The total amount of water to be applied at one irrigation is usually fixed by the crop
root depths and the soil hydraulic properties. Thus, the maximum application intensity
can be obtained from infiltration relations using plots such as Figure 6.15.
For example, let us assume that 20 mm of water are to be applied in a single irriga-
tion on a loam soil. Using appropriate parameters for this soil and the fc(I) relationship
in Figure 6.15, we can see that the scaled application rate should not exceed 50 mm/h
in order to prevent surface ponding and runoff. It is important to remember, however,
that the soil hydraulic properties are not stable in time in a field subject to cultivation,
and these relations will change in response to soil disturbance.
6.4.2.3 Effect of soil properties on infiltration. Infiltrability fc(I) for vertical infil-
tration from a ponded surface into deep homogeneous soil profiles are plotted in Fig-
ure 6.15 for four soils. Note that these are based on sampled mean properties, and any
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 147

given soil may vary considerably from the relation shown here. As expected, infiltra-
tion rates tend to increase with coarser soil texture: values of G decrease with coarse-
ness, and values of Ks increase significantly. However, soil structure and porosity are
also important, so it is not always possible to relate infiltration capacities to texture
alone just as the hydraulic conductivity does not always change directly with soil tex-
ture. Variations in either the diffusivity or soil-water characteristic at water contents
near saturation have a very strong influence on predicted infiltration. Therefore, errors
in measuring the soil hydraulic properties are of far greater consequence for water
contents near saturation than for drier conditions, so far as infiltration is concerned.
6.4.2.4 Effects of initial water content. As the infiltration equations above indi-
cate, initial water content θi affects the soil water storage capacity, and acts mathe-
matically in tandem with the effective capillary drive: an increase in initial wetness is
like a decrease in capillary drive. If infiltration is allowed to continue indefinitely, the
infiltration rate will eventually approach Ks regardless of the initial water content. In-
filtration rates are higher at low initial contents because of higher hydraulic gradients
and more available storage volume. Because of increased storage capacity, the wetting
front advances more slowly for lower θi. For very wet initial conditions, there are ap-
propriate modifications to the f(I) relation discussed by Corradini et al. (1994).
6.4.2.5 Approximate infiltration equations. The methods outlined above provide
physically consistent means of quantifying infiltration in terms of the soil properties
governing movement of water and air. Obtaining the necessary soil property data is
usually not simple. Variation of the soil properties, both with depth and from point to
point in the field, requires numerous measurements be made to adequately describe
field conditions. Present methods of determining the hydraulic properties are difficult
and such data are only available for a limited number of soils. Thus, while the predic-
tion methods discussed in this chapter are extremely valuable in analyzing the effects
of various factors on the infiltration process, many existing engineering approaches
use empirical equations. The original purpose of such equations, in the absence of a
theoretical equation, was to fit measured data in a simple manner. Now, the analytic
forms in Table 6.4 also allow data fitting, from which come parameters with more
physical meaning.
Several of the more popular empirical algebraic equations are given in Table 6.5.
Except for a parameter representing a minimum value of f, (fo), the parameters gener-
ally have no physical meaning and cannot be measured.
Table 6.5. Algebraic infiltration relations in common use.
Infiltration Name Formula Reference
Kostiakov fc = Kk t -c Kostiakov (1932)
Modified Kostiakov fc = fo + Kk t -c
Horton fc = fo + (fi – fo) e-ct Horton (1939)

6.4.3 Infiltration Measurements


Parr and Bertrand (1960) published a thorough review of field methods for measur-
ing infiltration capacity. Basically three types of devices may be used: sprinkling infil-
trometers, flooding infiltrometers, and disk permeameters. From the application point
of view, it might be advantageous to use a sprinkling infiltrometer if sprinkler irriga-
tion is to be used, while flooding infiltrometers may be more appropriate for soils that
148 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

are to be furrow or flood irrigated. However, the flooding devices are far more fre-
quently used because they require less equipment and are easier to install and to oper-
ate than the sprinkling type. With use of physically based infiltration equations, pa-
rameters are robust, and flooding test results can be applied to sprinkling irrigation
conditions.
6.4.3.1 Ring infiltrometers. The most commonly used infiltrometer is probably the
ring or cylindrical infiltrometer, which was described in detail by Haise et al. (1956)
and is shown schematically in Figure 6.16. It consists of a metal cylinder, 200 to 450
mm in diameter, which is pressed or driven into the soil. Infiltration is measured by
ponding water inside the cylinder and measuring the rate that the free surface falls, or
by measuring the rate that water must be added to maintain a constant ponded depth.
Once the wetting front exceeds the buried cylindrical depth, lateral flow may cause the
measured infiltration rates to be higher than would occur during irrigation. Lateral
flow is especially troublesome if restrictive or subsurface compacted layers exist or if
the hydraulic conductivity decreases with depth. When restrictive layers are at a shal-
low depth, it is recommended that the infiltration cylinder be driven into or through
the layer, if possible. A common problem with ring infiltrometers is that in driving
cylinders there is always some soil disturbance near the ring wall, which can signifi-
cantly affect the measurements. A means of preventing biased measurements due to
lateral soil water flow is to use a guarded ring or buffer area around the outside of the
infiltration cylinder, as shown in Figure 6.16. Water is ponded between the two cylin-
ders at all times to prevent edge effects and to maintain vertical flow below the central
infiltration cylinder. The Wooding (1968) analytical solutions for steady state infiltra-
tion from a circular ponded surface into a deep, homogeneous soil can be used to es-
timate the guard ring diameter, D, needed for deep soils. For general purposes, a ratio
of the cylinder diameters of two or greater (D/d ≥ 2) is recommended; however, a ratio
as small as 1.25 may suffice for coarse soils. The water levels in both the cylinders
should be nearly equal, and the level can be maintained by adjusting the water supply
from separate reservoirs or by using a mariotte siphon or float valves to automatically
control the inflow. If a tall cylinder of uniform cross-section is used as the supply res-
ervoir, the infiltration volume can be determined easily and accurately by simply re-
cording the water level in the reservoir.
Buffer Supply Infiltration
Reservoir Reservoir

Infiltration Cylinder
Buffer Cylinder

Figure 6.16. Schematic of the essential features of a traditional ring infiltrometer.


Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 149

6.4.3.2 Tension infiltrometer or disc permeameter. This device was introduced


in discussions above (Section 6.3.4.2). Under tension the final infiltration rate meas-
urements will be lower than for ponded infiltration, but an alternative arrangement,
using a ring with minimum soil penetration, allows use of the same device for applica-
tion at zero to small positive depths. For many soils, final infiltration rates will be ap-
proximately steady within the time taken for the cylinder to empty, due to the three-
dimensional nature of the flow. However, these values will be considerably above the
value of Ks. Approximations for sorptivity S or capillary drive G may be made if care-
ful measurements are taken very early in the experiment, but accurate rate values dur-
ing this short period are considerably more difficult to measure.
6.4.3.3 Furrow infiltrometers. Infiltration under furrow irrigation involves soil
water movement in both vertical and lateral directions. Because the infiltrability rela-
tion depends on the size and shape of the furrow, the rate water moves into the soil is
often called intake rate rather than infiltration rate. Infiltration rates determined by
sprinkler or well buffered cylindrical infiltrometers can represent primarily vertical
flow, so it is difficult to apply these results directly to furrow intake. One method fre-
quently used to determine intake rates is to make inflow and outflow measurements in
an irrigation furrow. Furrow-sized measuring flumes are sometimes used to determine
intake rates by making flow measurements at two points in an irrigation furrow lo-
cated 30 to 90 m apart, and computing spatially averaged intake rates from the differ-
ence of inflow and outflow for various times after water application begins. A detailed
discussion of the use of the inflow-outflow method is given by Merriam (1968) (also
see Chapter 17). While this method provides a good means of evaluating furrow irri-
gation systems that are already installed, it is often not convenient to use this method
to determine intake rates for the design of a new system. Bondurant (1957) developed
a furrow infiltrometer to measure intake rates in a short section of an irrigation furrow.
The furrow is blocked off by metal plates and water is applied at a rate sufficient to
maintain a constant depth. The intake rate function and/or parameters are then deter-
mined in a manner similar to that described for the cylindrical infiltrometer. Water and
any sediment entrained may be recirculated to better simulate natural conditions.
6.4.3.4 Sprinkling infiltrometers. Many types of sprinkling infiltrometers were
discussed by Parr and Bertrand (1960). Sprinkling or spray infiltrometers usually con-
sist of a plot surrounded by partially buried sheet metal barriers with facilities for
measuring the rate of surface runoff. Water is sprinkled onto the plot surface at a con-
stant intensity and the infiltration rate is determined from recorded runoff measure-
ments. In most cases the infiltration rate is determined by simply subtracting the run-
off rate from the application intensity. However, the increase of surface storage during
the initial stages of runoff should also be considered. Failure to correct for surface
storage may result in significant errors in the early part of the measured infiltration
relationships (Smith, 1976).
A relatively simple method for measuring infiltrabilities for sprinkler irrigation de-
sign was developed by Tovey and Pair (1966). The general method consists of an area
covered by sprinklers on which the application rate varies over a significant range,
along with an array of rain gauges (uniform cans) to record total depth. The Tovey and
Pair method used a rotating sprinkler which produced intermittent application rates at
each position, with rates varying with radius position. If the application rates are uni-
form in time (except for intermittency), then the local rate at any gauge is the depth
150 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

divided by the time. The gauge located at a position just at the point dividing an area
of ponding (water appearing on the surface) from an area which accepts all the applied
water will presumably record the depth of water necessary to cause ponding at that
rate. The growing area of runoff should yield a set of data which will record the pond-
ing relation such as shown in Figure 6.14, except that the soil will usually exhibit
some spatial variability in its intake relations. Gauge depths at the time of ponding
should be taken for as many gauges as possible.
6.4.4 Soil Water Redistribution
After irrigation or rainfall, the wetted region at the top of the soil profile will redis-
tribute, with the water content slowly declining, and the depth of wetting slowly increas-
ing. An analytic solution for this process for a particular mathematical form of the soil
water characteristic was presented by Warrick et al. (1990). Alternatively, many soil
water profile models simulate this redistribution with finite difference numerical solu-
tions of Equation 6.14. Parkin et al. (1995) used a form of the Warrick et al. (1990)
drainage solution to characterize drainage of a very deeply wetted soil for many soil
types. Smith et al. (1993) and Corradini et al. (1994) developed a simplified method to
estimate the redistribution rate after shallow wetting, based on the same parameters ap-
pearing in the infiltration equations. The method calculates elongation of the profile us-
ing a modified form of the capillary drive, G, which reflects the fact that with the declin-
ing water content, the upper limit in Equation 6.20 is an algebraically decreasing poten-
tial. Errors in predicting surface θo were generally less than 5% after many hours. Figure
6.13, above, illustrates the general asymptotic pattern of soil water decay with time, and
demonstrates the approximate method of Corradini et al. (1994) and Smith et al. (1993).
6.5 COMPLICATING FACTORS
The discussion thus far has not dealt with most of the complexities of the soil me-
dium: soil layers, soil surface sealing, air entrapment by infiltrating water, and random
variation in soil properties. A brief discussion of each is warranted to clarify their re-
spective effects and the state of current knowledge.
6.5.1 Soil Layers
Soil layers or horizons have important effects on water profile infiltration, holding
characteristics, and redistribution. In comparison with a uniform soil, any profile dis-
continuity that affects pore size distribution, such as a textural or structural change,
will decrease water movement. The effect of soil layers on water retention and move-
ment was reviewed several years ago by Miller (1973).
When a coarser soil overlies a finer soil layer, water will move through the upper
soil faster than through the lower, fine-textured layer. Water will accumulate above
the layer and positive hydraulic pressures may develop. Unless an appreciable slope
exists, the water will remain in the soil until it is lost by slow drainage through the
substrata, and by evapotranspiration. Inasmuch as the water would drain away if the
fine-textured layer were not present, the finer layer greatly increases the water storage
capacity of the soil profile, but only up to a point. These soils must be irrigated care-
fully to prevent adverse effects of excess water and poor aeration. A slowly permeable
layer will transmit water slowly, but for a long period of time after irrigation. Thus,
with significant evapotranspiration rates, the effective available water will be much
higher than with lower ones because the plant can extract water while the soil is drain-
ing—water that would be lost as drainage if plants were not present.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 151

If the discontinuity consists of a fine-textured soil layer above a coarser-textured


layer, the lower layer will not conduct significant amounts of water until many of the
pores are filled with water. This will occur only at potentials much higher than those at
which the pores in the soil above are filled. As the profile drains, the layer will stop
transmitting water at relatively high potentials, and the water content in the soil above
the layer will remain higher than if the layer were not present. This situation is often
called a capillary barrier effect, and is often used to control drainage through or from
waste storage sites.
The major items to consider in evaluating the influence of coarse-textured soil lay-
ers on water retention are (1) the saturated conductivity of the layer, (2) depth and
thickness of the layer, and (3) desorption characteristics of the soil (Miller, 1973). The
soil water potential may exhibit strong gradients in either a homogeneous or a layered
soil, but the potential will be continuous across an interface, and changes in water con-
tent and in hydraulic conductivity will occur at any layer interface.
6.5.1.1 Effect of layered soils on infiltration. For a coarse- over a fine-textured
soil, infiltration proceeds exactly as for a coarse-textured soil alone until the wetting
front arrives at the boundary between the two layers. Then the progress of the wetting
front is slowed, as the lower conductivity soil has its effect; and as the wetting front
enters the lower layer, the infiltration rate approaches that predicted for the fine-
textured soil alone. The infiltration rate-time relationship for fine- over coarse-textured
soils will also decrease when the wetting front reaches the coarser layer. The value of
fz for the case of only two layers was derived approximately by Moore (1981) and
more generally by Smith (1990). In short, it depends on the relative characteristics of
the K(h) relations for the two soils and the thickness of the upper layer, but it is always
lies somewhere between the Ks values for the two layers. Thus, a thinner upper layer
of finer texture will result in fz more like the lower soil, and a deep upper, finer texture
soil will result in an fz more like the surface layer. An approximate infiltration model
for a two-layered profile, not including crust development rate, was suggested by
Smith (1990).
6.5.1.2 Surface sealing and crusting. One special form of layering in soils is a
surface seal or crust. In the proceeding discussions we have assumed that the soil ma-
trix or skeleton is rigid and does not change with time. Actually, the hydraulic proper-
ties at the soil surface may change dramatically due to tillage disturbance, freezing and
thawing, and during the application of water. Such changes may have a stronger influ-
ence on the rate of infiltration than some of the other factors discussed. Indeed, in
some of the early studies of infiltration, the “exponential” decay of infiltration rate
with time was entirely attributed to slaking of aggregates and swelling of colloids
which progressively sealed the soil (Horton, 1940).
Because of the complex nature of the sealing process and the difficulty of describ-
ing the manner in which hydraulic properties of the surface layer change with time,
there have been few attempts to use the theory of soil-water movement to analyze the
phenomena. However, the results of numerous experimental investigations indicating
the importance of surface sealing have been reported, for example, Duley (1939), Hor-
ton (1940), Mannering and Meyer (1963), Burwell and Larson (1969), Moldenhauer
and Kemper (1969), and Koon et al. (1970). Mualem and Assouline (1989) have pro-
posed and analyzed a crust or surface layer that is transitional rather than a strict layer,
152 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

and therefore more like what one would expect to develop in soil crusting. Their
analysis is limited to steady flow rather than the dynamic flux of an infiltration event.
Clearly, surface sealing and crusting has a significant, perhaps dominant, effect on
infiltration in bare or unprotected soils. This factor is of less importance when the sur-
face is protected by a crop canopy or mulch. However, it must be considered in the de-
sign of irrigation systems and in selecting methods for measuring infiltration capacities.
6.5.2 Effects of Air Entrapment and Counterflow
We noted in Section 6.4.1 that the derivation of the Richards’ equation assumes
that displaced soil air moves through the profile with negligible resistance and that the
air pressure remains constant throughout. This assumption is usually justified by the
small viscosity of air relative to that of water and by assuming that air can escape ei-
ther downward or upward through large pores that remain partially open during infil-
tration. While these assumptions may hold in many instances, there are numerous
cases where air is trapped by infiltrating water causing an air pressure buildup in ad-
vance of the wetting front and a reduction of the infiltration rate. Even for deep pro-
files, pressure buildup and subsequent counterflow of escaping air causes infiltration
rates to be less than would occur if resistance to air movement was truly negligible.
The fact that air movement may significantly affect infiltration has been recognized
for many years (e.g., Free and Palmer, 1940). Studies showing the effects of air pres-
sure buildup and the flow of air on the infiltration process have been conducted by
Wilson and Luthin (1963), Peck (1965) and Adrian and Franzini (1966). A particularly
detailed study of this phenomenon with (water-like) oil as the infiltrating liquid was
reported by McWhorter (1971). He conducted infiltration experiments for conditions
representing both semi-infinite and finite profile depths, and presented analytical
methods for predicting the effects of two-phase flow. Methods for characterizing the
effects of air movement on infiltration in terms of soil properties and boundary condi-
tions are summarized in a detailed treatment of two-phase flow in porous media by
Morel-Seytoux (1973).
An example of the effect of air movement on infiltration as measured by
McWhorter (1971) for a 2.33-m sand column is shown in Figure 6.17. When the air
phase is neglected, the infiltration rate predicted by solution of Richards’ equation
asymptotically approaches Ks, the hydraulic conductivity at residual saturation, as dis-
cussed in Section 6.4.1. However, when air is entrapped between the wetting front and
the water table or a restrictive layer, air pressure increase causes a rapid reduction in
infiltration rate. As air pressure increases, upward flow of the air phase begins, often
followed by escape of air from the surface and an increase in the infiltration rate. This
predicted infiltration rate also asymptotically approaches a constant value but this
value may be significantly less than Ks. As an example of the effect of the air phase,
McWhorter’s data for a 9.9-m long, closed column of Poudre sand shows that the
long-term infiltration rate asymptotically approaches a value that is approximately
60% of Ks. The shorter, 2.33-m column also approaches this value, but exhibits an air
escape event during the experiment, resulting in increase in f and decrease in air pres-
sure. Intermediate length closed columns (not shown here) showed higher air pressure
buildup and consequently lower asymptotic rates of f. Examples presented by Morel-
Seytoux (1973) predicted steady state infiltration rates of approximately 0.3 Ks for
soils with shallow water tables and between 0.8 Ks and 0.9 Ks for infinitely deep pro-
files.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 153

10 300

9.9m closed column

air pressure head, mm(oil)


250

infiltration flux, mm/min.


8
200
6
air pressure head in soil
150
air-free infiltrability
4 measured infiltration rate 100

2 50

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, min.

10 500

2.3m closed column

air pressure head, mm(oil)


8 400
infiltration flux, mm/min.
air pressure head in soil
air-free infiltrability
measured infiltration rate
6 300

4 200

2 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, min.
Figure 6.17. The data of McWhorter (1971) demonstrate the effect that a
sealed bottom of a column of soil can have on infiltrability. The longer column
exhibits far less effect than the shorter one.
Morel-Seytoux and Khanji (1974) showed that the form of Equation 6.19 remains
the same when the simultaneous movement of both water and air are considered. The
resistance to air movement was accounted for by the introduction of a viscous resis-
tance correction factor, β a, (1 < β a < 2), which was defined as a function of the soil
and fluid properties, and applied as a divisor to Ks. Such a correction may be applied
to any of the equations in Table 6.3.
6.5.3 Heterogeneity
While all the above methodology is appropriate at any point on a field where soil
properties are measured and input rates are known, even the most uniform soil exhibits
variations over a field area. This is part of the reality which has led to current studies
of site-specific management and micromanagement in irrigation and chemical applica-
tion in farm practice. The challenge in dealing with large irrigated areas is to deal in a
reasonable manner with this variation. This is often called a problem in scaling up;
dealing with scales or areas larger than a sample or a plot is mostly a problem in deal-
ing with the heterogeneity encompassed by such larger scales.
Over the past few decades, there have been numerous theoretical studies of the sta-
tistics and behavior of an area composed of soils that have specific kinds of variability.
154 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

Considering the number of parameters which can and do exhibit variability, the prob-
lem is quite complex, and most studies have limited themselves to the variation of one
parameter, usually the variation of Ks (e.g., Dagan and Bresler, 1983). One type of
analysis is the treatment of a large area just as one would treat a group of small sam-
ples, to determine how the large area composed of internal variation of some assumed
or measured nature affects the large-scale behavior. This may be termed an ensemble
approach, and can be applied to soil water redistribution (Dagan and Bresler, 1983) as
well as infiltration (Smith and Hebbert, 1979; Chen et al., 1994). Other studies (Proto-
papas and Bras, 1990) have assumed parameter variation in the form of gaussian per-
turbation around a mean value, but are limited by some linearizing assumptions. For
surface infiltration, the above studies are limited because they neglect the surface run
on/runoff possibility; that is, areas with low infiltrability can contribute runoff which
adds to the input for adjacent areas of higher infiltrability. Field measurements with
sampling and dye tracing show very deep movement of surface-applied water in a very
few sites, such as old root channels and structural fractures (e.g., Kung, 1990).
In the above discussion we have considered movement of water and air in a homo-
geneous soil or in layers of homogeneous materials. However, natural soils are seldom
homogeneous and often are permeated, especially in the surface layers, by relatively
large channels formed by roots, cracking due to shrinkage, and worm holes. Obviously
such channels would have a great effect on infiltration as they would provide both
pathways for rapid inflow of water and an escape route for air as the wet front ad-
vances. Preferential flow is the name often applied to cases where water follows paths
of high conductivity existing in a soil profile. When such flow follows noticeable cracks
or tubes (such as worm-holes) these may be termed macropores. The effect of macro-
pores on infiltration has been studied by Germann and Beven (1985) and others. Large
pores, open to the soil surface, can contribute greatly to infiltration after surface ponding,
in some cases raising total infiltration by a factor of 10 or more. However, small soil air
pressures can block this contribution so large pores near to the surface, but not open,
have a much smaller effect on infiltration. Thus, infiltration can be increased by using
cultural practices designed to prevent the sealing of large pores near the surface.
Acknowledgements
This chapter is a heavily revised version of a similar chapter in the previous edition
of this monograph, written by R. W. Skaggs, D. E. Miller, and R. H. Brooks, and in
some places we have borrowed heavily, and gratefully, from their material.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
cm specific heat of soil mass
cw specific heat of soil water
C(h) specific capacity of soil, dh/dθ
d depth of surface water
f soil surface infiltration rate
fc soil surface infiltrability
g gravitational constant
G soil capillary length scale
h soil water capillary pressure head
hg soil water gravitational potential
hp soil water pressure potential
hT soil water total potential
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 155

H total soil water head, h + z


I cumulated infiltrated depth
Ip value of I when soil ponds under high value of r
kr relative hydraulic conductivity, K/Ks
K soil hydraulic conductivity
Ks saturated hydraulic conductivity, K(h) = 0
m soil retention relation parameter
n soil retention relation parameter
q soil flux
r Surface application flux value, sprinkler application
R radial distance from point source irrigation
vs velocity of soil electromagnetic wave
α soil capillary head scaling paramter
β parameter in the f(t) relation
βa air correction coefficient
θ volumetric water content of soil
θi initial value of θ, at beginning of irrigation
θr soil residual water content
θs saturated water content, value of θ at h = 0
θw water content of soil by weight
Θ scaled water content
κ soil dielectric constant
ρw mass density of water
ρb bulk density of soil
ρc volumetric heat capacity of soil
φ matric flux potential
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun, eds. 1964. Handbook of Mathematical Functions.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Adrian, D. D., and J. B. Franzini. 1966. Impedance to infiltration by pressure build-up
ahead of the wetting front. J. Geophys. Res. 71(24): 5857-5863.
Andraski, B. J., and B. R. Scanlon. 2002. Thermocouple psychrometry. In Methods of
Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical Methods, 609-642. J. H. Dane, and G. C. Topp, eds.
Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc. America.
Bondurant, J. A. 1957. Developing a furrow infiltrometer. Agric. Eng. 38: 602-604.
Bouwer, H., and R. D. Jackson. 1974. Determining soil properties. In Drainage for
Agriculture, 611-672. J. van Schilfgaarde, ed. Madison, Wis.: American Soc.
Agronomy
Bristow, K. L., G. S. Campbell, and K. Calissendorf. 1993. Test of a heat-pulse probe
for measuring changes in soil water content. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 57(4): 930:934.
Broadbridge, P., and I. White. 1988. Constant rate rainfall infiltration: A versatile,
nonlinear model. I. Analytic solution. Water Resources Res. 24(1): 145-154.
Brooks, R. H., and A. T. Corey. 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media. Hydrol.
Paper No. 3. Fort Collins, Colo.: Colorado State Univ.
Buckingham, E. R. 1907. Studies on the movement of soil moisture. U.S. Dept. Agr.
Bureau of Soils Bulletin 38. Washington, D.C.: USDA.
Burwell, R. E., and W. E. Larson. 1969. Infiltration as influenced by tillage-induced
156 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

random roughness and pore space. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 33: 449-452.
Cassel, D. K. 1974. In situ unsaturated hydraulic conductivity for selected North
Dakota soils. Bulletin No 494. Fargo, N.D.: Agr. Exp. Sta., N.D. State Univ.
Chen, Z., R. S. Govindaraju, and M. L. Kavvas. 1994. Spatial averging of unsaturated
flow equations under infiltration conditions over areally heterogeneous fields 1.
Development of models. Water Resources Res. 30(2): 523-533.
Clothier, B., and D. Scotter, 2002. Unsaturated water transmission parameters
obtained from infiltration. Section 3.5 in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical
Methods, 879-898. J. H. Dane, and G. C. Topp, eds. Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc.
America.
Corey, A. T., and A. Klute. 1985. Application of the potential concept to soil water
equillibrium and transport. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 49(1): 3-11.
Corradini, C., F. Melone, and R. E. Smith. 1994. Modeling infiltration during complex
rainfall sequences. Water Resources Res. 30(10): 2777-2784.
Dagan, G., and E. Bresler. 1983. Unsaturated flow in spatially variable fields 1.
Derivation of models of infiltration and redistribution. Water Resources Res. 19(2):
413-420.
Dane, J .H., and G. C. Topp, eds. 2002. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical
Methods. Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc. America.
Duley, F. L. 1939. Surface factors affecting the rate of intake of water by soils. Soil
Sci. Soc. America Proc. 4: 60-64.
Free, J. R., and V. J. Palmer. 1940. Relationship of infiltration air movement and pore
size in graded silica sand. Soil Sci. Soc. America Proc. 5: 390-398.
Gardner, W. R. 1958. Some steady-state solutions of the unsaturated moisture flow
equation with application to evaporation from a water table. Soil Sci. 85: 228-232.
Gardner, W. R. 1960. Dynamic aspects of water availability to plants. Soil Sci. 89: 63-
73.
Gardner, W. H., D. Hillel, and Y. Benyamini. 1970. Post-irrigation movement of soil
water. 1: Redistribution. Water Resources Res. 6(3): 851-861.
Germann, P. F., and K. Beven. 1985. Kinematic wave approximation to infiltration
into soils with sorbing macropores. Water Resources Res. 21(7): 990-996.
Green, W. H., and G. Ampt. 1911. Studies of soil physics. Part I: The flow of air and
water through soils. J. Agr. Sci. 4: 1-24.
Grossman, R. B., and T. G. Reinsch. 2002. Bulk density and linear extensibility.
Section 2.1 in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical Methods, 201-228. J. H.
Dane, and G. C. Topp, eds. Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc. America.
Haise, H. R., W. W. Donnan, J. T. Phelan, L. F. Lawhon and D. G. Shockley, 1956.
The use of cylinder infiltrometers to determine the intake characteristics of irrigated
soils. USDA Publ. ARS 41-7. Washington, D.C.: USDA.
Hillel, D. 1971. Soil and Water: Physical Principles and Processes. New York, N.Y.:
Academic Press.
Horton, R. E. 1939. Analysis of runoff plot experiments with varying infiltration
capacity. Trans. American Geophys. Union Part IV: 693-694.
Horton, R. E. 1940. An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration-
capacity. Soil Sci. Soc. America Proc. 5: 399-417.
Horton, R., P. J. Wierenga, and D. R. Nielsen. 1982. A rapid technique for obtaining
uniform water content distributions in unsaturated soil columns. Soil Science 133:
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 157

397-399.
Hudson, D. B., P. J. Wierenga, and R. G. Hills. 1996. Unsaturated hydraulic properties
from upward flow into soil cores. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 60: 388-396.
Hussen, A. A., and A. W. Warrick. 1994. Tension infiltrometers for measurement of
vadose zone hydraulic properties. In Handbook of Vadose Zone Characterization
and Monitoring, 189-201. L. G. Wilson, L.G. Everett, and S. J. Cullen, eds. Boca
Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers.
Jury, W. A., W. R. Gardner, and W. H. Gardner, 1991. Soil Physics. 5th ed. New
York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons.
Koon, J. L., J. G. Hendrick, and R. E. Hermanson. 1970. Some effects of surface cover
geometry on infiltration rate. Water Resources Res. 6: 246-253.
Kostiakov, A. N. 1932. On the dynamics of the coefficient of water-percolation in
soils and on the necessity for studying it from a dynamic point of view for purposes
of amelioration. Trans. 6th Comm. Internl. Soil. Sci. Soc., Russian Part A: 17-21.
Kosugi, K., J. W. Hopmans, and J. H. Dane, 2002. Parametric models. Section 3.3.4 in
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical Methods, 739-757. J. H. Dane, and G. C.
Topp, eds. Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc. America.
Kung, K-J.S. 1990. Preferential flow in a sandy vadose zone. 1: Field observations.
Geoderma 46(1-3): 51-58.
Mannering, J. V., and L. D. Meyer. 1963. The effects of various rates of surface mulch
on infiltration and erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. America Proc. 27: 84-86.
McWhorter, D. B. 1971. Infiltration affected by flow of air. Hydrol. Paper No. 49.
Fort Collins, Colo.: Colorado State Univ.
Mein, R. G., and C. L. Larson. 1973. Modeling infiltration during a steady rain. Water
Resources Res. 9(2): 384-394.
Merriam J. L. 1968. Irrigation System Evaluation and Improvement. San Luis Obispo,
Calif.: Blake Printing.
Miller, D. E. 1973. Water retention and flow in layered soil profiles. In Field Soil
Water Regime, 107-117. R. R. Bruce et al, eds. Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc.
America.
Moldenhauer, W. C., and W. D. Kemper, 1969. Interdependence of water drop energy
and cold size on infiltration and clod stability. Soil Sci. Soc. America Proc. 33: 297-
301.
Moore, I. D. 1981. Infiltration equations modified for surface effects. J. Irrig. Drain.
Div., ASCE 107(IR1): 71-86.
Morel-Seytoux, H. J. 1973. Two-phase flows in porous media. Advances in
Hydroscience 9: 119-202.
Morel-Seytoux, H. J., and J. Khanji. 1974. Derivation of an equation of infiltration.
Water Resources Res. 10(4): 795-800.
Mualem, Y. 1974. A conceptual model of hysteresis. Water Resources Res. 10: 514-
520.
Mualem, Y., and S. Assouline. 1989. Modeling soil seal as a nonuniform layer. Water
Resources Res. 25(10): 2101-2108.
Nielsen, D. R., J. M. Davidson, J. W. Biggar, and R. J. Miller. 1964. Water movement
through Panoche clay loam soil. Hilgardia 35: 491-506.
Nielsen, D. R., R. D. Jackson, J. W. Cary, and D. D. Evans, eds. 1972. Soil Water.
Madison, Wis.: American Soc. Agronomy.
158 Chapter 6 Soil Water Relationships

Nielsen, D. R., J. W. Biggar, and K. T. Erh. 1973. Spatial variability of field measured
soil water properties. Hilgardia 42(7): 215-260.
Or, D. 1995. Statistical analysis of soil water monitoring for drip irrigation
management in heterogeneous soils. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 59: 1222-1233.
Parkin, G. W., A. W. Warrick, D. E. Elrick, and R. G. Kachanoski. 1995. Analytical
solution for one-dimensional drainage: water stored in a fixed depth. Water
Resources Res. 31(5): 1267-1271.
Parlange, J-Y., I. Lisle, R. D. Braddock, and R. E. Smith. 1982. The three-parameter
infiltration equation. Soil Science 133(6): 337-341.
Parr, J. F., and A. R. Bertrand. 1960. Water infiltration into soils. Advances in Agron.
12: 311-363.
Peck, A. J. 1965. Moisture profile development and air compression during water
uptake by bounded porous bodies. 3: Vertical columns. Soil Sci. 100(1): 44-51.
Philip, J. R. 1957. The theory of infiltration. 1: The infiltration equation and its
solution. Soil Sci. 83: 435-448.
Philip, J. R. 1968. Steady infiltration from buried point sources and spherical cavities.
Water Resources Res. 4: 1039-1047.
Protopapas, A. L., and R. L. Bras. 1990. Uncertainty propagation with numerical
models for flow and transport in the unsaturated zone. Water Resources Res.
26(10): 2463-2474.
Rawlins, S. L. 1976. Measurement of water content and the state of water in soils. In
Water Deficits and Plant Growth, IV: 1-55. T. T. Koslowski, ed. New York, N.Y.:
Academic Press.
Reeves, M., and E. E. Miller. 1975. Estimating infiltration for erratic rainfall. Water
Resources Res. 11(1): 102-110.
Reginato, R. J., and C. H. M. Van Bavel. 1964. Soil water measurement with gamma
attenuation. Soil Sci. America Proc. 28: 721-724.
Reynolds, W. D., and D. E. Elrick, 2002. Constant head well permeameter (vadose
zone). Section 3.4.3.3 in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical Methods, 844-
837. J. H. Dane, and G. C. Topp, eds. Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc. America.
Reynolds, W. D., D. E. Elrick, E. G. Youngs, A. Amoozegar, H. W. G. Booltink, and
J. Bouma, 2002. Saturated and field-saturated water flow parameters. Section 3.4 in
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical Methods, 802-817. J. H. Dane, and G. C.
Topp, eds. Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc. America.
Richards, L. A. 1931. Capillary conduction of liquids in porous mediums. Physics 1:
318-333.
Richards, L. A., and C. H. Wadleigh. 1952. Soil water and plant growth. In Soil
Physical Conditions and Plant Growth, 73-251. B. T. Shaw, ed. Monog. 2.
Madison, Wis.: American Soc. Agronomy.
Romano, N, and A. Santini, 2002. Water retention and storage: Field. In Methods of
Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical Methods, 721-738. J. H. Dane, and G. C. Topp, eds.
Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc. America.
Sartzendruber, D. 1969. The flow of water in unsaturated soils. In Flow through
Porous Media, 215-292. R. M. DeWiest, ed. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press.
Shani, U., R. J. Hanks, E. Bresler, and C. A. S. Oliviera. 1987. Field method for
estimating hydraulic conductivity and matric potential-water content relations. Soil
Sci. Soc. America J. 51: 298-302.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 159

Simunek, J., M. Sejna, and M. Th. van Genuchten. 1999. The HYDRUS-2D software
package for simulating the two-dimensional movement of water, heat, and multiple
solutes in variably-saturated media. Version 2.0. Riverside, Calif.: USDA-ARS
Salinity Lab.
Smith, R. E. 1976. Approximations for vertical infiltration rate patterns. Trans. ASAE
19(3): 505-509.
Smith, R. E. 1990. Analysis of infiltration through a two-layer soil profile. Soil Sci.
Soc. America J. 54(5): 1219-1227.
Smith, R. E., and R. H. B. Hebbert. 1979. A Monte Carlo analysis of the hydrologic
effects of spatial variability. Water Resources Res. 15(2): 419-429.
Smith, R. E., and J-Y. Parlange. 1978. A parameter efficient hydrologic infiltration
model. Water Resources Res. 14(3): 533-538.
Smith, R. E., C. Corradini, and F. Melone. 1993. Modeling infiltration for multistorm
runoff events. Water Resources Res. 29(1): 133-144.
Smith, R. E., K. R. J Smettem, P. Broadbridge, and D. A. Woolhiser. 2002. Infiltration
theory for hydrologic applications. Water Resources Monograph 15. Washington,
D.C.: American Geophysical Union.
Topp, G. C., J. L. Davis, and A. P. Annan. 1980. Electromagnetic determination of
soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resources
Res. 16(2): 574-582.
Topp, G. C., and P. A. (Ty) Ferré, 2002. Water content, Section 3.1. In Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 4: Physical Methods, 422-428. J. H. Dane, and G. C. Topp, eds.
Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc. America.
Tovey, R., and C. H. Pair, 1966. Measurement of intake rate for sprinkler irrigation
design. Trans. ASAE 9: 359-363.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1994. Time domain reflectometry in environmental,
infrastructure and mining applications. In Proc. of Symposium sponsored by
Infrastructure Technology Institute at Northwestern Univ. and Los Alamos
National Lab.
van Genuchten, M. T. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 44(5): 892-898.
Warrick, A. W., D. O. Lomen, and A. Islas. 1990. An analytical solution to Richards’
equation for a draining soil profile. Water Resources Res. 26(2): 253-258.
Warrick, A. W. 2003. Soil Water Dynamics. New York, N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press.
Watson, K. K. 1967. A recording field tensiometer with rapid response characteristics.
J. Hydrol. 5: 33-39.
Wilson, L. G., and J. N. Luthin. 1963. Effect of air flow ahead of the wetting front on
infiltration. Soil. Sci. 96(2): 136-143.
Wooding, R. 1968. Steady infiltration from a shallow circular pond. Water Resources
Res. 4: 1259-1273.
Woolhiser, D. A., R. E. Smith, and D. C. Goodrich. 1990. KINEROS, a Kinematic
Runoff and Erosion Model: Documentation and User Manual. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Agri. Res. Service, ARS-77. Washington, D.C.: USDA-ARS.
Young, M. H., and J. B. Sisson. 2002. Tensiometry. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part
4: Physical Methods, 575-608. J. H. Dane, and G. C. Topp, eds. Madison, Wis.:
Soil Sci. Soc. America.

View publication stats

You might also like