Advertisement

Comparison of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Methods for Sandy Loam Soil with Different Land Uses

  • Aminul IslamEmail author
  • D. R. Mailapalli
  • Anuradha Behera
Conference paper

Abstract

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) is a quantitative measure of saturated soil properties and it is essential for designing irrigation, drainage and waste water systems, modelling studies for understanding and prediting rates of infiltration, runoff, erosion, seepage, upflux, solute transport and migration of pollutant to groundwater. However, the accuracy of Ks is highly dependent on the method used, soil and surface characteristics. The objective of the study was to compare Ks methods such as two in situ [Double ring infiltrometer (DRI), air entry permeameter (AEP)] and one pedotransfer function (PTF) based methods for four different land uses such as paddy field (PADF), mango field (MANF), cashew field (CASF) and playground (PLAG). The Ks obtained from the DRI, AEP and PTF methods were used to study the effect of the method and land use on Ks and suitability of a method for a land use. It was observed that the measured Ks data using AEP and DRI of different land uses follow a log-normal distribution. The mean Ks were significantly different for both measuring technique and the land use. The AEP resulted highest (2.64 mm/h) and PTF lowest (1.59 mm/h) values of Ks, respectively for all land uses, whereas the Ks was highest (2.47 mm/h) and lowest (1.75 mm/h) for the land uses CASF and PLAG, respectively. For all land uses, the mean Ks were highest for AEP followed by DRI, and PTF methods. The order of Ks obtained for the land uses were CASF (2.51 mm/h), MANF (1.87 mm/h), PADF (1.82 mm/h) and PLAG (1.71 mm/h). Spatial variability of Ks was observed for DRI method and the land use PLAG. The selection of best suitable method for a particular situation can be obtained by optimizing the interdependent parameters, including method to be used, accuracy in instrument and measurement methods, soil condition and the numbers of practical constraints of the investigation (e.g., cost, availability of manpower, time requirement, portability of estimate, simplicity in measuring technique, operating condition).

Keywords

Saturated hydraulic conductivity Ring infiltrometer Air entry permeameter Pedotransfer function Land use 

References

  1. 1.
    Reynolds, W.D.: Saturated hydraulic conductivity: Laboratory measurement. In: Carter, M.R. (ed.) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, pp. 589–598 (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shukla, M., Lal, R.: Transport of dissolve organic carbon through soil columns. Annual Meeting of ASA/SSSA Seattle, WA, p. 31 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prieksat, M.A., Kaspar, T.C., Ankeny, M.D.: Positional and temporal changes in pounded infiltration in corn field. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 181–184 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lekamalage, W.B.: Characterization of surface soil hydraulic conductivity in sloping landscapes. Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Department of Soil Science University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, pp. 1–4 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, H.J.: Comparing the inverse parameter estimation approach with pedo-transfer function method for estimating soil hydraulic conductivity. Geosci. J. 9(3), 269–276 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kechavarzi, C., Dawson, Q., Leeds-Harrison, P.B.: Physical properties of low-lying agricultural peat soils in England. Geoderma 154, 196–202 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jarvis, N., Koestel, J., Messing, I., Moeys, J., Lindahl, A.: influence of soil, land use and climatic factors on the hydraulic conductivity of soil. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 5185–5195 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holden, J., Burt, T.P.: Hydraulic conductivity in upland blanket peat. Measur. Var. Hydrological Process. 17, 1227–1237 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rossiter, G.D., Jatten, G.V.: Effects of soil depth and saturated hydraulic conductivity spatial variation on runoff simulation by Limburg soil erosion model (LISEM). A Case Study in Faucon Catchment, France. Enschede, the Nederland’s (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nielsen, D.R., Biggar, J.W., Erh, K.T.: Spatial variability of field-measured soil-water properties. Hilgardia 42, 215–259 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Darzi, A., Yari, A., Bagheri, H., Sabe, G., Yari, R.: Study of variation of saturated hydraulic conductivity with time. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 134, 479–484 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bagarello, V., Provenzano, G., Sgroi, A.: Fitting particle size distribution models to data from burundian soils for the best procedure and other purposes. Biosys. Eng. 4, 435–441 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dev, K.S., Shukla, K.M.: Variability of hydraulic conductivity due to multiple factors. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 8(5), 489–502 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reynolds, D.W., Bowman, B.T., Brunke, R.R., Drury, C.F., Tan, C.S.: Comparison of tension infiltrometer, pressure infiltrometer, and soil core estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 478–484 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bagarello, B., Castellini, M., Di Prima, S., Giordano, G., Iovino, M.: Testing a simplified approach to determine field saturated soil hydraulic conductivity. Procedia Environ. Sci. 19, 599–608 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klute, A.: Laboratory measurement of hydraulic conductivity of saturated soil. In: Black, C.A. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, pp. 210–221 (1965)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, M.D., Reynolds, D.W., Elrick, E.D., Clotheier, E.B.: A comparison of three field method for measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity. Can. J. Soil Sci. 65, 563–573 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klute, A., Dirksen, C.: Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: laboratory methods. In: Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1—Physical and Mineralogical Methods, pp. 687–734 (1986)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grant, C.D., Groenevelt, P.H.: Weighting the differential water capacity to account for declining hydraulic conductivity in a drying coarse-textured soil. Soil Res. 53(4), 386–391 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jačka, L., Pavlásek, J., Kuráž, V., Pech, P.: A comparison of three measuring methods for estimating the saturated hydraulic conductivity in the shallow subsurface layer of mountain podzols. Geoderma 219, 82–88 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burgy, R.H., Luthin, J.N.: A test of the single and double ring type infiltrometers. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 37, 189–191 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bagarello, V., Iovino, M., Lai, J.B.: Field and numerical tests of the two-ponding depth procedure for analysis of single-ring pressure infiltrometer data. Pedosphere 23(6), 779–789 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Elrick, D.E., Reynolds, W.D., Tan, K.A.: Hydraulic conductivity measurements in the unsaturated zone using improved well analyses. Groundw. Monit. Remediat. 9(3), 184–193 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bouwer, H.: A double tube method for measuring hydraulic conductivity of soil in situ above a water table. In: Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, vol. 25, pp. 334–342 (1961)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perroux, K.M., White, I.: Designs for disc permeameters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52, 1205–1215 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bouwer, H.: Rapid field measurement of air entry value and hydraulic conductivity of soil as significant parameters in flow system analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2, 729–738 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bagarello, V., Iovino, M., Elrick, D.: A simplified falling-head technique for rapid determination of field saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 66–73 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Topp, G.C., Binns, M.N.: Field measurement of hydraulic conductivity with a modified air entry permeameter. Can. J. Soil Sci. 56, 139–147 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mohanty, B.P., Kanwar, S.R., Everts, J.C.: Comparison of saturated hydraulic conductivity measurement methods for a glacial-till soil. soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58(3), 672–677 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bodhinayake, W., Si, C.B.: Near-saturated surface soil hydraulic properties under different land uses in the St Denis National Wildlife Area, Saskatchewan, Canada. Hydrol. Process. 18, 2835–2850 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fallico, C., Migliari, E., Troisi, S.: Comparison of three measurement methods of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 3, 987–1019 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bagarello, V., Sgroi, A.: Using the single-ring infiltrometer method to detect temporal changes in surface soil field saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Tillage Res. 76(1), 13–24 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fodor, N., Sandor, R., Orfanus, T., Lichne, L., Rajkai, K.: Evaluation method dependency of measured saturated hydraulic conductivity. Geoderma 165, 60–68 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ronayne, M.J., Houghton, T.B., Stednick, J.D.: Field characterization of hydraulic conductivity in a heterogeneous alpine glacial till. J. Hydrol. Eng. 458(459), 103–109 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Runbin, D.R., Fedler, B.C., Borrelli, J.: Comparison of methods to estimate saturated hydraulic conductivity in texas soils with grass. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 138(4), 322–327 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bagarello, V., Baiamonte, G., Castellini, M., Di Prima, D., Iovino, M.: A comparison between the single ring pressure infiltrometer and simplified falling head techniques. Hydrol. Process. 28, 4843–4853 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hall, D.G., Reeve, M.J., Thomasson, A.J., Wright, A.F.: Water Retention, Porosity and Density of Field Soils. Soil Survey of England and Wales. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, UK (1977)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Campbell, G.S.: Soil Physics with Basic: Transport Models for Soil Plant Systems. Elsevier Science, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rawls, W.J., Gimenez, D., Grossman, R.: Use of soil texture, bulk density and slope of the water retention curve to predict saturated hydraulic conductivity. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 41(4), 983–988 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smettem, K.R.J., Bristow, K.L.: Obtaining soil hydraulic properties for water balance and leaching models from survey data. 2. Hydraulic conductivity. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 50(7), 1259–1262 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wösten, J.H.M., Pachepsky, Y.A., Rawls, W.J.: Pedotransfer functions: bridging the gap between available basic soil data and missing soil hydraulic characteristics. J. Hydrol. 251, 123–150 (2001)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wosten, J.H.M., Lilly, A., Nemes, A., Le Bas, C.: Development and use of a database of hydraulic properties of European soils. Geoderma 90, 169–185 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schaap, M.G., Leij, F.J., Van Genuchten, M.T.: Rosetta: A computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J. Hydrol. 251, 163–176 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wagner, B., Tarnawski, V.R., Hennings, V., Müller, U., Wessolek, G., Plagge, R.: Evaluation of pedo-transfer functions for unsaturated soil hydraulic conductivity using an independent data set. Geoderma 102, 275–297 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bouma, J.: Measuring the hydraulic conductivity of soil horizons with continuous macropores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 438–441 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nielsen, D.R., Wendroth, O.: Spatial and Temporal Statistics—Sampling Field Soils and Their Vegetation. Catena, Reiskirchen, Germany, p. 416 (2003)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bormann, H., Klaassen, K.: Seasonal and land use dependent variability of soil hydraulic and soil hydrological properties of two northern german soils. Geoderma 145, 295–302 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hu, W., Shao, M., Wang, Q., She, D.: Effects of measurement method, scale, and landscape features on variability of saturated hydraulic conductivity. J. Hydrol. Eng. 18, 378–386 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reynolds, W.D., Elrick, D.E., Young, E.G.: Ring or cylinder infiltrometers (vadose zone). In: Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (eds.) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4: Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Journal Madison, pp. 818–843 (2002)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hu, W., Shao, M., Wang, Q., Fan, J., Horton, R.: Temporal changes of soil hydraulic properties under different land uses. Geoderma 149(3–4), 355–366 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Carter, M.R., Gregorich, E.G.: Soil Sampling and Methods of analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science, Pinawa, Manitoba (2008)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rao, M.D., Raghuwanshi, N.S., Singh, R.: Development of a physically based 1d-infiltration model for irrigated soils. Agric. Water Manag. 85(1), 165–174 (2006)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nimmo, J.R., Schmidt, K.M., Perkins, K.S., Stock, J.D.: Rapid measurement of field-saturated hydraulic conductivity for areal characterization. Vadose Zone J. 8(1), 142–149 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schaap, M.G.: Rosetta Version 1.0. U.S. Salinity Laboratory, ARS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Riverside, CA. (1999)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Alvarez-Acosta, C., Lascano, R.J., Stroosnijder, L.: Test of the Rosetta pedotransfer function for saturated hydraulic conductivity. Open J. Soil Sci. 2(3), 203–212 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schaap, M.G., Van Genuchten, M.T.: A modified Mualem-Van Genuchten formulation. Vadose Zone J. 5, 27–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Aldabagh, A.S.Y., Beer, C.E.: Field measurement of hydraulic conductivity above a water table with air-entry permeameter. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 14(1), 29–31 (1971)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nemati, M.R., Caron, J., Banton, O., Tardif, P.: Determining air entry value in peat substrates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66(2), 367–373 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Van Den Berg, J.A., Louters, T.: The variability of soil moisture diffusivity of loamy to silty soils on marl, determined by the hot air method. J. Hydrol. 97(3), 235–250 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chapuis, R.P.: Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel using effective diameter and void ratio. Can. Geotech. J. 41(5), 787–795 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Park, E., Smucker, A.: Saturated hydraulic conductivity and porosity within macro aggregates modified by tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69(1), 38–45 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zhou, X., Lin, H.S., White, E.A.: Surface soil hydraulic properties in four soil series under different land uses and their temporal changes. CATENA 73(2), 18–188 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Matthews, G.P., Laudone, G.M., Gregory, A.S., Bird, N.R.A., Matthews, A.G., Whalley, W.R.: Measurement and simulation of the effect of compaction on the pore structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity of grassland and arable soil. Water Resour. Res. 10.1029/2009WR007720 (2010)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zhang, X.C., Norton, L.D.: Effect of exchangeable mg on saturated hydraulic conductivity disaggregation and clay dispersion of disturbed soils. J. Hydrol. 260(1–4), 194–205 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lado, M., Paz, A., Ben-Hur, M.: Organic matter and aggregate size interactions in saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68(1), 234–242 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dusa, A.A.: Effect of bulk density on saturated hydraulic conductivity. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 5(1), 159–165 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aminul Islam
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. R. Mailapalli
    • 2
  • Anuradha Behera
    • 2
  1. 1.Applied Engineering DepartmentVignan’s Foundation for Science, Technology and Research (VFSTR)Vadlamudi, GunturIndia
  2. 2.Agricultural and Food Engineering DepartmentIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations