Comparación de dos métodos alternativos al pozo barreno para la medición de la conductividad hidráulica saturada (Ks) en un Alfisol

1Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The following study compared two field methods and one laboratory method to measure saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) in the saturated phase of soil, all evaluated in a clayey loam soil with three replicates. The two field methods under study were the auger hole method (PB) and the cylinder infiltrometer (CI), the laboratory method was the constant head permeameter (PCC). Ks values delivered by the PCC method showed differences in magnitude (1,03 m day-1) and a high variability (CV=249%), thus using these method is not recommended for soil with similar characteristics to the studied one. The PB and the CI methods showed a low variability (CV=39 and 13%) and similar Ks values (10,8 and 7,1 m day-1), being recommended the use of both methods in soils with similar characteristics to the studied one. These methods are complementary, because of the PB requires the presence of a water level, meanwhile the CI requires the absence of these one.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pfeiffer, M., Haberland, J., Kremer, C., & Seguel, O. (2008). Comparación de dos métodos alternativos al pozo barreno para la medición de la conductividad hidráulica saturada (Ks) en un Alfisol. Revista de La Ciencia Del Suelo y Nutricion Vegetal, 8(3), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27912008000300005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free