Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:17:54.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Matric suctions to which soils in South Central England drain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Webster  and
P. H. T. Beckett
R. Webster
Affiliation:
Soil Science Laboratory, Oxford
P. H. T. Beckett
Affiliation:
Soil Science Laboratory, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In a survey of soils in South Central England matric suctions were measured frequently during 1962 and 1963. Results for the period October to May are given for sites lying above the influence of the regional ground water table and show the matric suctions to which the soils drain. Sandy soils drain within 2 or 3 days to a definite field capacity at about 50 mbar suction. Loams and clay loams, though from profile appearance regarded as freely drained, take up to about 1 week to drain to a fairly constant suction of 40–50 mbar, which can also be regarded as field capacity. However, suctions prevailing during this time are less – about 20 mbar. The prevailing suctions in clay soils are about 10 mbar in the topsoil (13 cm) and – 10 mbar in the subsoil (38 cm). These soils drain slowly but steadily when rain ceases and no definite field capacity is evident. For the sandy soils, loams and clay loams, the matric suctions characterize the upper limit of the available water capacity (AWC) of the soil. The values are less than almost all previous estimates or assumed values. For the clays the upper limit of AWC remains best estimated by field sampling at the time of interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , June 1972 , pp. 379 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beckett, P. H. T. & Webster, R. (1965 a). A classification system for terrain. Report no. 872, Military Engineering Experimental Establishment, Christchurch.Google Scholar
Beckett, P. H. T. & Webster, R. (1965 b). Field trials of a terrain classification system. Organisation and methods. Report no. 873, Military Engineering Experimental Establishment, Christchurch.Google Scholar
Colman, E. A. (1947). A laboratory procedure for determining the field capacity of soils. Soil Sci. 63, 277–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, W. W. (1955). The rate of water uptake of soil crumbs at low suctions. J. Soil Sci. 6, 147–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamison, V. C. & Kroth, E. M. (1958). Available moisture storage capacity in relation to textural composition and organic matter content of several Missouri soils. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 22, 189–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudeforth, C. C. & Thomasson, A. J. (1970). Hydrological properties of soils in the River Dee catchment. Special Survey no. 4, Soil Survey, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Russell, E. W. (1961). Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Salter, P. J. & Williams, J. B. (1965). The influence of texture on the moisture characteristics of soils. I. A critical comparison of techniques for determining the available water capacity and moisture characteristic curve of a soil. J. Soil Sci. 16, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, P. J., Berry, G. & Williams, J. B. (1967). The effect of farmyard manure on matric suctions prevailing sandy loam soil. J. Soil Sci. 18, 318–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomasson, A. J. & Robson, J. D. (1967). The moisture regimes of soils developed on Keuper Marl. J. Soil Sci. 18, 329–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veihmeyer, F. J. & Hendrikson, A. N. (1931). The moisture equivalent as a measure of field capacities of soils. Soil Sci. 32, 181–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, R. (1966). The measurement of soil water tension in the field. New Phytol. 65, 249–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar