Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:29:53.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relations existing between the soil and its water content: A Résumé of the Subject

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Bernard A. Keen
Bernard A. Keen
Affiliation:
(Goldsmiths' Company's Soil Physicist, Rothamsted Experimental Station.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In any systematic account of the work done on the moisture in soil and its behaviour under varying conditions, it is necessary to keep constantly in mind that the underlying hypotheses have been profoundly modified in recent years. When physical methods were first applied to the examination of soils, the results were interpreted on the obvious hypothesis that the soil could be regarded as composed of mineral particles of varying shapes and sizes, over the surfaces of which the water was distributed in a thin film. The movements of the film water and its average thickness at any time, under the varying meteorological and soil influences, could be predicted more or Jess completely from known physical principles such as surface tension, etc. Similarly, the concentration of the plant nutrients in the soil moisture was considered mainly as a matter of solubility in, and diffusion within, this moisture. The foundation of the subject of soil physics was laid upon these lines in the early 19th century by Davy and Schübler.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1920 , pp. 44 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1920

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 44 note 1 Davy, H.Elements of Agricultural Chemistry, 1st ed. (1813). London.Google Scholar

page 44 note 2 Schübler, G.Gründsatze der Agriculture-Chemie, (1830). Leipzig.Google Scholar

page 45 note 1 Briggs, L. J.U.S. Bureau of Soils, Bull. 10 (1897).Google Scholar

page 46 note 1 Wisconsin Agric. Expt. Station 6th Rept. (1889), p. 189.Google Scholar

page 47 note 1 King, and Slichter, . “Principles and conditions of the movements of ground water.” 19th Annual Report, 1899 (Pt II), (U.S. Geol. Survey).Google Scholar

page 47 note 2 Wied. Ann., 22 (1884), p. 510.Google Scholar

page 47 note 3 Wied. Ann., 22 (1884), p. 518.Google Scholar

page 47 note 4 Wied. Ann., 45 (1892), p. 666.Google Scholar

page 48 note 1 Journ. Agric. Science, 5 (1912–1913), p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 48 note 2 Green and Ampt state that the so-called “glistening dew” of the picture post-card artist is composed of almost perfectly spherical grains or beads of glass of diameter 25 mm. upwards, and is thus an invaluable material for experimental tests of theoretical deductions, such as those of Slichter.

page 49 note 1 Journ. Agric. Science, 4 (1911–1912), p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 49 note 2 New Phytologist, 12 (1913), p. 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 50 note 1 I.e. the moisture remaining in the 15° C. air-dried sample.

page 50 note 2 The hygroscopic moisture is the amount of water held by an air-dried soil and should not be confused with the hygroscopic coefficient, which is the amount of water taken up by a dry soil when exposed to a saturated atmosphere of water vapour. There is, of course, a general parallelism between the two.

page 50 note 3 Journ. Agric. Res., 16 (1919), p. 263.Google Scholar

page 51 note 1 Ref. p. 45.

page 51 note 2 Utah Sia. Bull., No. 115 (1912), p. 195.Google Scholar

page 52 note 1 Russell, E.J.Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, 3rd ed. (1917), p. 140. Longmans.Google Scholar

page 52 note 2 Journ. Agric. Res., 9 (1917), p. 27.Google Scholar

page 52 note 3 Landw. Jahrb., 30 (1901), p. 361.Google Scholar

page 52 note 4 Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Chem. Series I (1908), p. 79.

page 53 note 1 Keen, B. A.Journ. Agric. Science, 9 (1918–1919), p. 396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 53 note 2 King, and Slichter, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

page 54 note 1 California Expt. Sta. Rept. (1892–4), p. 91.

page 54 note 2 Journ. Agric. Res., 10, (1917), p. 391.Google Scholar

page 54 note 3 See footnote, p. 50.

page 54 note 4 Landw. Vers. Stat. 69 (1908), p. 93.Google Scholar

page 54 note 5 U. S. Bureau of Soils, Bulls. 25 (1904) and 38 (1907).Google Scholar

page 55 note 1 Wisconsin Agric. Expt. Station, 7 (1890), p. 145.Google Scholar

page 55 note 2 Ann. Sci. Agron. (3 sér.) 4, I. (1909), p. 379.Google Scholar

page 55 note 3 U.S. Bureau of Soils, Bull. 52 (1908).Google Scholar

page 56 note 1 Nebraska Agric. Expt, Station Res., Bull. 3 (1913).Google Scholar

page 56 note 2 Journ. Agric. Res., 11 (1917), p. 147.Google Scholar

page 56 note 3 Landw. Vers. Stat., 59 (1904), p. 433.Google Scholar

page 56 note 4 Ztsch. Angew. Chem., 23 (1910), p. 1840.Google Scholar

page 57 note 1 Fühling's Landw. Ztg., 54 (1905), p. 673.Google Scholar

page 57 note 2 Landw. Vers. Stat., 75 (1911), p. 231.Google Scholar

page 57 note 3 Ztsch. Angew. Chem., 23 (1910), p. 1841.Google Scholar

page 57 note 4 Landw. Jahrb., 40 (1911), p. 645.Google Scholar

page 57 note 5 Inter. Mittl. Bodenk., 2 (1912), p. 463.Google Scholar

page 57 note 6 Amer. Journ. Sci., 7 (1874), p. 9.Google Scholar

page 58 note 1 Nebraska Agric. Expt. Sta. Res. Bull., 3 (1913).Google Scholar

page 58 note 2 Phil. Mag., 30 (1890), p. 285, p. 456CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 58 note 3 Proc. Roy. Soc., 77 A (1906), p. 292; 79 A (1907), p. 383CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 58 note 4 Journ. Agric. Science, 1 (1905–1906), p. 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 59 note 1 Ann. Set. Agron. (3 sér.), 4, II. (1909), p. 393.Google Scholar

page 60 note 1 Mich. Agric. Coll. Tech. Bull., 42 (1918).Google Scholar

page 60 note 2 Journ. Landw., 46 (1898), p. 255; 48 (1900), p. 71.Google Scholar

page 61 note 1 Briggs, L. J. and Shantz, H. L.U.S. Bureau Plant Ind., Bull. 230 (1912).Google Scholar

page 61 note 2 Briggs, L. J. and McLane, J. W.U.S. Bureau of Soils, Bull. 45 (1907).Google Scholar

page 61 note 3 Journ. Agric. Res., 6 (1916), p. 833.Google Scholar

page 61 note 4 Loc. cit.

page 62 note 1 Ref. I, p. 58.

page 62 note 2 For a detailed summary of work on the wilting coefficient, which lies rather outside the scope of the present paper, seeBlackman, V. H. (Journ. Ecology, 2 (1914), p. 43). The papers of Alway and Shull should also be read in this connection.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 62 note 3 Journ. Agric. Res., 9 (1917), p. 27.Google Scholar

page 64 note 1 Journ. Agric. Sci., 8 (1916–1917), p. 312.Google Scholar

page 64 note 2 Encyclopédie Chemique. Frémy (Paris, 1885), 10, p. 67.Google Scholar

page 64 note 3 Koll. Zeit., 17 (1915), p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 66 note 1 Jonrn. Agric. Sci., 6 (1914), p. 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 66 note 2 U.S. Bureau of Soils, Bull, 10 (1897).Google Scholar

page 66 note 3 Loc. cit.

page 67 note 1 The soils used in these experiments when ignited gave, on shaking the bottle, a cloud of fine particles, which floated away like smoke when the stopper was removed.

page 67 note 2 Bot. Gaz., 62 (1916), p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 67 note 3 Introduction to Phys.Chem. 7th ed. 1913. Macmillan.Google Scholar

page 68 note 1 The various papers discussed in this connection appear in Michigan Agric. Coll. Expt. Station Technical Bulletins, Nos. 24 (1915); 31 (1916); 36 (1917); 42 (1918); and in theGoogle ScholarJourn. Agric. Res., 8 (1917), p. 195; 15 (1918), p. 331.Google Scholar

page 69 note 1 Journ. Amer. Oktm. Soc., 38 (1916), p. 583, and 39 (1917), p. 1103.Google Scholar

page 70 note 1 Keen, B. A.Jonrn. Agrin. Science. 9 (1918–1919), p. 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 71 note 1 Summaries Of the various methods of extracting soil solution are given by Stiles and Jérgensen (Journ. Ecology, 2 (1914)), p. 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Bouyoucos, (Mich. Tech. Bull., 24 (1915)).Google Scholar

page 71 note 2 U.S. Bureau of Soils, Bull. 22 (1903).Google Scholar

page 71 note 3 A full account of work on the soil solution is given by Russell, E. J., in Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, 3rd ed. (1917), p. 104. LongmansGoogle Scholar. See also, by the same author, Chem. Soc. Ann. Reports, 15 (1918), p. 172 (“Agricultural Chemistry and Vegetable Physiology”), in which are discussed experiments at the University of California, giving results in opposition to the views of Whitney and Cameron.CrossRefGoogle Scholar