Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-llmch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T02:14:30.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relationships between Sticky Point, Moisture Equivalent, and Mechanical Analysis in some Australian Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. A. Prescott  and
H. G. Poole
J. A. Prescott
Affiliation:
(Waite Agricultural Research Institute1, University of Adelaide.)
H. G. Poole
Affiliation:
(Waite Agricultural Research Institute1, University of Adelaide.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The quantitative relationships between “single value” properties and mechanical analysis of the soil are of some considerable importance in the textural classification of soils, and have received much attention since the original work on moisture equivalent by Briggs and McLane (1907). The empirical nature of the moisture equivalent, with the consequent trend towards standardisation of technique, has led to frequent re-examination of the relationship between the mechanical analysis and the “single value.”

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 1934 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1934

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

Bodman, G. B. and Perry, E. P.Soil Sci. (1931), 31, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodmak, G. B. and Mahmud, A. J.Soil Sci. (1932), 33, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, L. J. and Mclane, J. W.United States Dept. Agric. Bur. Soils Bull. (1907), No. 45.Google Scholar
Coutts, J. R. H.J. Agric. Sci. (1932), 22, 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, F.J. Agric. Sci. (1923), 13, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, H. J. G.Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensland (1931), 43, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, A. F.J. Agric. Sci. (1927), 17, 12.Google Scholar
Keen, B. A. and Coutts, J. R. H.J Agric. Sci. (1928), 18, 740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manegold, E., Hofmann, R. and Solf, K.Kolloid Z. (1931), 56, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, T. J. and Hooper, P. D.coun. Sci. Ind. Res. (Aust.) Bull. (1932), No. 56.Google Scholar
Middleton, H. E.Soil Sci. (1920), 9, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, J. A. and Piper, C. S.Trans. Roy. Soc. South Aust. (1932), 56, 118.Google Scholar
Sharp, L. T. and Waynick, D. D.Soil Sci. (1917), 4, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. K. and England, H. N.Coun. Sci. Ind. Res. (Aust.) Bull. (1929), No. 42.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. K. and O'Donnell, J.Trans. Roy. Soc. South Aust. (1932), 56, 3.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. D. and Harris, K.Soil Sci. (1926), 21, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1931), 21, 800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westmann, A. E. R. and Hugill, H. R.J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. (1930), 13, 767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar