Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T07:24:25.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in the physical properties of soils: IV. A further contribution to the theory of capillary phenomena in soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

William B. Haines
William B. Haines
Affiliation:
(Soil Physics Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The theory of the capillary behaviour of moist soil has been further amplified for the ideal case and its relationship to various soil properties considered. Over part of the moisture range which has been dealt with by other authors it is found that there are alternative forms for the water distribution. This appears to explain why some differences of opinion have been expressed regarding some of the main points presented in a previous paper.

The theory is considered in relation to capillary rise in soils as well as to the problem of cohesion previously dealt with. It is shown that the moisture distribution attained by capillary rise can be inferred from simple direct measurement of the suction pressure. Various other experimental illustrations of the theoretical conclusions are introduced.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1927 , pp. 264 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1927

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

(1)Haines, W. B. (1925). Journ. Agric. Sci. 15, 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Fisher, R. A. (1926). Journ. Agric. Sci. 16, 492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Schliohter, C. S. (1899). U.S. Geological Survey, 19th Annual Report.Google Scholar
(4)Wilsdon, B. H. (1921 and 1924). Mem. Indian Agric. Dept. Chem. Ser. 6, 155; also Journ. Agric. Sci. 14, 473.Google Scholar
(5)Keen, B. A. (1924). Journ. Agric. Sci. 14, 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Atterberg, A. (1916). Int. Mitt, für Bodenkunde, 6, 27, 38.Google Scholar
(7)Haines, W. B. (1925). Journ. Agric. Sci. 15, 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Linford, L. B. (1926). Soil Science, 22, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Shull, C. A. (1916). Botanical Gazette, 62, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Livingstone, B. E. and Koketsu, N. (1920). Soil Science, 9, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Pulling, H. E. (1917). Soil Science, 4, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Also Livingstone, and Pulling, (1915). Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pub. 204, 49.Google Scholar
(12)Hardy, F. (1923). Journ. Agric. Sci. 13, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Livingstone, B. E. (1918). Plant World, 21, 202.Google Scholar
Also Livingstone, and Hawkins, L. A. (1915). Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pub. 204, 1.Google Scholar
(14)Kornev, B. G. (1924). Abstracted in Soil Sci. 17, 428. Original papers in Russian Journ. of Exp. Agronomy, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)Joffe, J. S. and McLean, H. C. (1925). Soil Science, 20, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Buckingham, E. (1907). U.S. Bureau of Soils Bull. No. 38.Google Scholar
(17)Deighton, T. (1922). Journ. Agric. Sci. 12, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)MacLaughlin, W. W. (1924). U.S. Dept. Agric. Bull. No. 1221.Google Scholar
(19)Wadsworth, H. A. and Smith, A. (1926). Soil Science, 22, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)Terzaghi, K. (1925). Engineering News-Record (U.S.A.), 142.Google Scholar