Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:33:12.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The maximum water-retaining capacity of colloidal soils; the interpretation of this and of certain other soil moisture constants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. Hardy
F. Hardy
Affiliation:
Imperial Department of Agriculture in the British West Indies.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The maximum water-retaining capacity of a soil may be defined as the quantity of water, measured as a percentage of the mass of oven-dry material, that the soil can retain after it has been thoroughly wetted and then allowed to drain freely. It is generally estimated in the laboratory by Hilgard's method (1893). The air-dried sifted soil is packed by jarring into a small perforated cylindrical brass box which is then placed in a vessel containing water, so that the bottom layer of the soil is in contact with the liquid surface. After standing an hour, the cylinder is removed, surplus water wiped away, and the whole weighed. The cylinder and contents are then dried to constant mass in an air-oven at 110° C. The weighings are corrected for the mass of the cylinder and that of the filter paper employed to cover the sieve. From the results, the maximum water-retaining capacity may directly be calculated.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , July 1923 , pp. 340 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1923

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

page 340 note 1 Hilgard, , Soils, 1918, p. 209.Google Scholar

page 340 note 2 U.S. Bur. Plant Indus., Bul. 230, 1912.Google Scholar

page 341 note 1 Journ. Agric. Research, 7, 345, 1916.Google Scholar

page 341 note 2 Calif. Agric. Expt. Sta., Rpt., 1892–1994, p. 70.Google Scholar

page 341 note 3 Journ. Agric. Research, 9, 27, 1917.Google Scholar

page 341 note 4 Mem. Dept. Ag. India, Chem, Series, 6, 3, 171, 1921.Google Scholar

page 342 note 1 Hardy, F., Journ. Agric. Sci., 13, 243, 1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 342 note 2 Cornell Univ. Ag. Expt. Sta., Mem. 21, p. 497, 1919.Google Scholar

page 344 note 1 Journ. Agric Sci., 11, 441, 1921.Google Scholar

page 345 note 1 The pore space of the air-dry soils, passed through a 1 mm. sieve, and packed into perforated brass boxes, was found to vary between 55 and 65 per cent. The theoretical pore space for particles of a given diameter in maximum packing is 26 per cent.

page 345 note 2 In practice, it is impossible to obtain only film water between the soil particles. Two different definitions for the maximum water retentivity constant have therefore arisen; oertain writers (e.g. Hilgard) define the constant as the quantity of water that a soil can hold when the pore spaces are completely filled with water; others (e.g. Wilsdon), as the quantity of water held when free liquid occurs only as surface films.

page 346 note 1 A somewhat similar result was obtained in connection with the determination of shrinkage coefficients (see Table III, column 6). The numerical results obtained are not, of course, comparable with those obtained in the retentivity experiments, since the state of the material on which volume expansion was measured, differed in the two cases. The phenomena of volume expansion of soils, both under natural and artificial conditions, are being further investigated.

page 347 note 1 The reader is referred to Ostwald, Wo., Theor. and Applied Colloid Chem., 1917, p. 152Google Scholar, for references to literature on the subject of the structure of humus colloids, and to Bancroft, , Applied Colloid Chem., 1921, p. 76Google Scholar, for an account of the colloid science of cellulose.

page 348 note 1 U.S. Bur. Plant Indus., Bul. 230, 1912.Google Scholar

page 348 note 2 For a discussion of the significance of the wilting coefficient, see Blackman, , Journ. Ecology, 2, 43, 1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Mason, , West Ind. Bul. 19, 138, 1922Google Scholar. The relationship between this, as well as that of other soil moisture constants, and vapour pressure gradients in soils is fully considered by Thomas, , Soil Science, 11, 409, 1921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 348 note 3 West Ind. Bul. 19, 153, 1922.Google Scholar

page 348 note 4 Mason, however, considers the divergencies not to be significant.

page 349 note 1 Briggs, and McLane, , U.S. Bur Soils, Bul. 45, 1907.Google Scholar

page 349 note 2 See Russell, , Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, 1921, pp. 218–27Google Scholar, for a summary of the main facts connected with the water supply of the soil. Also Keen, , Journ. Agric. Sci., 10, 60–64. 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 349 note 3 U.S. Bur. Plant Indus., Bul. 230, 1912.Google Scholar

page 349 note 4 U.S. Bur. Sotls, Bul. 50, p. 50. 1908.Google Scholar

page 349 note 5 Ibid. p. 52.

page 349 note 6 Davis, (Journ. Ind. Engin. Chem., 6, 1008, 1914)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has adduced evidence to show that the critical moisture content of a soil is also numerically equal to the minimum waterretaining capacity, i.e. to the moisture content at the upper end of a column of soil that has been allowed to take up moisture by vertical capillarity from a reservoir.