Sunteți pe pagina 1din 63

GIOO

GIOI
GI02
GI03
GI04
GIOS
,/ GI06
/ GI07
GlOB
GI09
E2,ES
F3A
F3B
F3C
SCHOOL OF CROP SCIENCES
INDEX
Introduction
Pot Trial
Lime Requirement
Effect of Consolidation on Emergence
Sieve Analysis
Hec4anical Properties
Moisture Characteristic
stability to Wetting
Aggregate Analysis - P.S.A. and S.A.R.
Density and Pore Space Relations (PSR)
Air Dry 6g, Density of Solids for PSR
PSR of a Natural Soil Core
PSR of Soil Aggregate by Wax Block
Shrinkage Curve of a Soil Paste
.' ..
G100.1
ScHOOL OF CIlDI? SCIENCES
DEPARTf'lENT OF SOIL SCIENCE.
",
'METHODOLOGY - PRACTICAL WORK
Introducti on
On completion of an experiment, all of which have questions, the
student must present his laboratory notebook to a supervisor for comment
and marking. In addition, a summary of the principal results should be
prepared on a separate sheet of paper at the same time; this will be
retained by the department.
It is important that the- design of any experiment should be ba;ed on
a consideration of all information previously obtained. For example:
the moisture characteristic of the porous material may predicted
semi-quantitatively using information from the sieve analysis. This
prediction allows us to anticipate the size of the matric potential
steps so that maximum information is'obtained in the range of potential
where drainage of the majority of pores occurs. It wi 11 also permit
prediction of the maximum drainable porosity so that moisture content
variation can be measured with maximum accuracy.
The "predictive" questions concluding each. experiment are designed
to guide the student in this form of preparation for subsequent
experiments.
",
6100.2
Laboratory Notebook
A 1 abora tory record must be kept ina hardback notebook. Thi srecord
must contain all detail s of 1 aboratory practi ce where they d1fferfrom
these notes and with experimental results and errors adeq"uately tabUlated. "
Each experiment generally concl udes with a conci Sf! di scussi on of the
theory of methods used and the si.gnificance of results and "errors; See
Appendix Al/2/3 for precedure concerning errors.
Appropriate references must be cited in the text in the manner
described in the CSIRO publication "A Guide to Authors"-or in the appendix
of currents issues of Aust. J. Soil Res. "
Laboratory Facilities
Practical work may proceed at any time when the laboratories.are not
occupied by other classes. Supervisors, however, will be availabie only
during programmed practical periods,
There
be at least two. students present outside of hours in. case of accident
There are a series of calculations and .questions it the end of each
experimental determination (or"group of determiiatlons). not
throw any experimental material away before you have" accurately com-
pleted all parts of the dete.rmination and have had answers and con-
clusions checked by a member of staff. .
, .
'-
.... ,
G-IOO
Intro/3;
Recording of Numerical Results and Accuracy of Measurement
(1)
(2)
(3)
A tabular form is required: each line should'incluae n a ~ e
of observation; unit of measurement; equipment used, equlp-
ment error; result for replicates A, Band C; 2 extra columns
for evaluation of equipment C.V.' if necessary t;e. if C.V!
(experimental) exceeds 10% - see. example on page B for eg.
Distinction should be made by underlining Or ,by using differ-
ent colours between primary observations e.g. mass of wet -
soil in the container or mass of dry soil in the conta,iner
and derived quantities such as mass of water, mass of oven
dry soil, an.d moisture content which are calculated from
the primary observations.
The standard deviation of a piece, of equipment depends on
the equipment used. This in its turn controls the number
of places to which primary data should be recorded and,the
coefficient of variation due to equipment. (The error of
a me'asurement is often related to the difference of two
observations, e.g. dry' and wet mass yield amount of water,
so that ffthe standard deviation of ' the equipment applies
to the'difference and hence controls the number of places
to which data should be collected to-reach a predetermined_
accuracy. )
Consideration of Variability of Results
The Coefficient of Variation obtained by study of the experimental
values from the replicates is generally a sufficient guide to
experimental reproducibility. If, however, the Coefficient of
Variation exceeds 10%, it is adVTsable to examine the equipment
standard errors and hence determine whether the cause is due to
the equipment or due to soil variability ptUB operator error.
In each
(1 )
(2)
experiment it is necessary to decide,
If the answer needs to be more or less accurate in view of
its proposed use;
how the method could be improved if increased accuracy is
, desirable.
Calculations involving Atomic Absorption, Pot'entiometric Analysis
and Colorimetrfc' Anal-ys-is- Results
The A A method pr-oduces results which are printed out tn the form
of y moles/litre for the element in question (Colorimetric ana-lyses
are read on calibration graphs of concentration either in moles/
litre versus absorption, or ppm versus absorption).
The concentration so obtained refers 'to t-he solution that was analysed.
Very rarely is this the same as the extract obtained from the soil. -
I
,c;..IOI) ,
'Introf4.
"
The following claculatlon steps are general, fcir,an'alyses 'i,n ,n1ol,es/
1 itre.
(1) .,' calculation of concentration in or.ig'iilal extract:
Original extract concentration moles/litre 'x O.F. where
,O.F. is the'dilution factor. '
(2) calculation of concentration in'o.d. solI:
(3 )
y x D.F. x (volume of extract/unit mass of SRil).
=
V (1 +8
8
1
'1 -1
y x D.F. x W x 100. mo es 9 ,
where W is mass of soil used in g. of'initial moisture con-
tent e- 9 g-l. and V is volume of extract 'in mI. The 1000
in thegdenominator converts ml to litres.'
The volume of the extract in many insiances 'includes the
water,in the original sample. i.e. W'x ego the amount
of solution added. v in ml
i.e. V v + W x 8
g
If. however. the final volume is made up'to volume as in a
volumetric flask. e.g. the Ag thiourea extract for Cation
Exchange Capacity. the water in the soil initially fs already
in the final volume.
--
Often the answer for the extract is required in mg!,ll.i-
equivalents/litre for the dry soil in
(1) multiply answer in either case by TOOO x z where z Is
valency of ion in question; , ' '
For many experiments the values of V. 8
g
and W, are constan't
between experiments and a constant mulJ;,l p1 ier' can be used
for step (2).
(4) Calculation of concentration in Jlgg-
l
of o.d. soil (ppm)
The answer in (2) is multiplied by M X I06,where M Is the
Molecular or Atomic weight of the in question.
SOIL SCIENCE I V PMCTICAL I'lANUAL .
.Introduction Paga S-
~ [ Instrument Accuracies (Assuming equipment 10 g o ~ d repair anp used correctly)
Balances
Volumetric
flasks
Pipettes
graduated
Pipettes
bulb
Burettes
Measuring
cylinders
Instrument
P1200and K7 Mettler
Mettler H4
Mettler P120
Mettler Hl0T\ll
Mettler AE1S0
Mettler AW200
Mettler PE3S0
PE3S0 Delta range
.Sartorius 1219MP
1219MP Delta range
50 mL
100 mL
500 nL
2nL
5mL
5mL
10'mL
25 mL
100 nL
50 mL (A grade for Volumetric chern.)
50 mL (others)
100 mL
500 mL
pH meter measuring to 0.5 mV
pH meter Radiometer
. AccUracy' .
0.03 9
0.001 9
0.003 9
0.0005 9
0,0001 9
0.0001 9
0.01 9
0.001 g'
0.01 9
0.001 9
0.1 nL
0.15nL
0.3 nL
0.03 nL/delivery.
0.05 nL/graduated
0.05 mL!delivery
0.05 mL!delivery
0.10 nL!delivery
0.12 nL!d.livery
0.05 nL/reading
O.lS.nL!reading
0.05 nL/reading
2.0 nL!reading
0.009 pH
0.005 pH
(
"
!:
"
"
..
"
'Af.1
APPENDIX
. ,."
of the standard deviation and the coefficient of attributable
to the equipment used in a determination. and layout
The standard deviation for a measurement using particular equipment 'is often suppl ied
by the manufacturer or can. be 'determined by repetitive obser.vations. a wjll be used
to indicate the standard dev"iation for these circumstances. The values given reflect
the cumulative ,experience in 'these laboratories, and are therefore subject to refine-
ment.
1. The simplest case is when all experimental measurements are independent. Let the oper
ational quantities w,x,y and z have variance etc. Provided that a
w
W, i.e. that
the coefficient of variation of each component is small, .
then c Var (X) c. where Xis the quantity to
be determined and is a function of w, x, y, z such that X c c.f(w,x,Y,z) and c is a
constant multiplier.
Hence aX = X It(Varz'!!.) or C.V. of.X c It(coeff.' of variation of w to z)2.
W w
Example 1: Estimation of Exchangeable Sodium Concentration ,in soil in milli-,equiv.
g-l, x = and c = 1
z
Measurement Unit
Experimental Value C.V, in
(C.V.)2
a
A B C
terms of
sample A+
Oil ution
-
.175 w = 10.0 ;175/10 .000,306,25
factor
- -
Extraction
.02 xc 50
.02/50, .000,000,16
factor
- - -
Concentration
:o..175xlO-
4
-4
.1 75xl 0-4/l 0-4 of analysed Molar y = 10
-
-
.000 i306 ,25
sol tition
Mass of soil g .003xl2* x c 10.00
-
- .003xl2/l0 '.OOO,OOO,IB
Sum (C.V.)
I t.OOO, 612 ,84
t Strictly the C.V. should be determined for the mean of sub sites A,8', and'
C. But the error in calculating C.V. (equip) by-using experimental values
of A alone is usually small.
, * Difference of two readings ,+ 12
Derived quantity
Concentriltion

"E c .024,756
in soil
.
I< 5 XIE ..

g
- - aX c
mean X .. XA+XB+X
C
..
.012,38
c c.v. (equip) ,
..
.025
jhiS t c. V
h
of .025 is entirely attributable to the equipment: ' Other contributio'ns
ue 0 t e operator, to variability within a sample, to variability between sa les
variability between sites can be incorporated,using
ons p. ence it, is possible to partition the experimental'C.V, into that
caused by the equipment and caused by,soll/site/operator sources. '
(
(.
N2
2. When t..h.: experimentally derived quantity, X, involves
<; c.f(x,y etc.} where one of the 'measurements is ,used more than once in,'
the calculation or where the operational quantities are non-independent,
the procedure for calculation of Ox is,more complex in ,that 'th.e covariance
of the non-independent quantities has to be
Exampl e: .Determinatibn 'of Moisture Contentsg
where
Mr
. Mass of wet sol1
M2
Mass of o.d. sol1
W
l
=
Mass of wet sol1 plus container
W
2
=
Mass of o.d. soil plus container
W3
=
Mass of container
OB ,= s.d. of balance.'. var (x)
2
= var (y) = 2"B
2
2 2
x2
Hence Variance
(Sg). = =
2"B
+
2Cf
BX + Cf
S
"7 ?
-4
y
2 2
2
And C.V. of '6'
=
"s
=
+
,2
o
B +
2"B]"
9
Sg XZ" x
x.y
Rearranging C.V. of 6
g
- /{(C.V.x)2 + (C.V.y)2 +, (C.V.x) (C.V.y))
of the non-independence, this expression has an additional
interactive term when compared with the expression appropriate for inde-
pendence.
A/3
.Calculated Example 2 and Specimen Layout:
.
-
. Expe ri men ta 1
a
B
Experi men ta 1 Value C.V
2
quantity
Unit
B C of A
(C.V.)
A
Mass of tin
9
.03 for K7 35.82=W
3
36.53 37.82
Mass of tin
9
.03 Balance 70.35=W
l
71.58 73.29
and wet soil
Mass of tin
9
.03

68.63 70.33
and dry so11
!

I
Derived I
quantities a
o:d. soil
9
.03 X I 2 31. 68=M
2
32:10 32.51 .Oof34 .000,001,795,6
,
water
9
03. x 12 2. 85=M
l
-M
2
2.95 2-:-96 .01489 .000,221,712,1' .
.000,019,952,6*
<Sum (C.V.)2.
E. 000,243,460,3
Additional term C,V'
M2
x
C:V'
M
M
.
1- 2
Derived quantity
6
9
99-
1
.0900=X .0919 .0910
Mean 8
9
gg-l
.0910
s (expt1) .00095 as c'S IE. .0".015,60
9
00140
C.V. (exptl) .0105 C.V. (equip)
c
.0156
C.V.(expt1) < C.V.(equip) and mean of s values provides' a good estimate of the exper-
imental value of 8
g
of .091g.
This value of 8
g
and the C.V.(equip) of .0156 can now be used in the derivation of.
C.V.(equip) of other experiments involving 8 in which the other measurements are
9 .
independent using the procedure of 1. i.e.ll:(C.V.)2. Notice that altho'ugh 8
g
has.
a C.V.(equip) of .0156, the C.V.(equip) of the mass of so11 is only.00134. (See
1st line of derived quantities). As can be seen in Example 1 for exchangeable sod-
ium, was z and its C.V.(equip) that were relevant, not 8
g
- zwas derived from
the wet wei 9ht corrected for 8. .
. 9
*This exam
p
le
2
is given to show.layout and calculation steps. In practice theC:V. of
A and (C.V.) two right hand" columns would not liave been calculated because C.V.
(experimental) is 0.01 or 1%. For many experiments < 10% is acceptable and does
not warrant analysis of er.rors... . .
Reference
Kendall & Stuart (1963). 'Advanced Theory of Statistics Vol. 2nd Ed. 'Gr'iffi,
(\ .
Gioo . .il!4
References
In addition to references cited specifically in the Practical Notes for
a particular experiment, the following texts will be useful:
Black: C.A. (ed) 1965. "Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I".
(Am. Soc. Agron.,Madison).
Childs, E.C. 1969. "Physical Basis of Soil and Water Phenomena".
(Wiley-Interscience).
Crank, J. 1964. "The Mathematics of Diffusion".
(Oxford U. P., London) .
Hagan, R.M., Haise, H.R. and Edminister, T.W. (eds) 1967.
"Irrigation of Agricultural Lands". (Am. Soc. Agron., Madison).
Kirkham, D. and Powers, W.L. 1972. "Advanced Soil Physics".
(Wiley, New York).
Luthin, J.N. (ed) 1957. "Drainage of Agricultural Lands".
(Am. Soc. Agron., Madison).
Phil ip, J .R. 1969. "Theory of Infiltration" in Advances in Hydroscience
5:215-296.
Rose, C.W. 1967. "Agricultural Physics". (Pergamon, London).
Loveday, J. (ed) 1974. Methods for Analysis of Irrigated Soils.
Tech. Comrn. No. 54 (C.A.B.).
';"
,
G101.1
Pot Trial
Glass House Assessment of Soil Fertility
1.1 Introducti on
.2
One of the most common methods of assessing soil fertility is to
conduct a'pot trial in which nutrients are added to the soil in
various combinations.
There ~ r e two principal designs:-
Omission trial - where an overall "plus" treatment with nutrients
ln quantities and ratios known to produce maximal growth of the
test plant is added to one treatment (pot) and one nutrient at a
time is omitted from all other treatment.
Factorial trial - where additions in various combinations are
made to a "control" or untreated soil.
For this assessment a randomized complete block factorial design
each at 2 root temperatures will be used. The chemical design
incorporates both a modified Andersop-Jenny trial where a single
(N or p) nutrient is omitted in each treatment, and a simple
factorial (control + K, + N, + P, + NP).
In total there are therefore 6 chemical treatments:
Control, - N, - P, - NP, + NPK, - NPK; where - NPK represents a
treatment to which all basic and minor elements necessary for
growth are added (i.e. Mo and CaC0
3
).
N.B. "Control" has CaC03 added when the test crop is lettuce.
(There is little point, as well as being statistically
undesirable, to design trials to produce zero yields for
some trea tmen ts. )
Study the questions which need to be considered at the conclusion
of the exercise before starting the experiment, to ensure no
aspect of the data collection is omitted.
Preliminaries
Prior to setting up the pot trial the following data should be
obtained or be calculated:
(i) the moisture content of the soil at field capacity;
(ii) the moisture content of the sample;
(iii) the quantity of lime required to bring the soil to
pH 6.5 for the wei ght of soi 1 used. (Desi gn for
approximately 52 post/soil each containing46.o g
wet soil at Field Capacity moisture content.
see Expt. G106);
(iv) a plan of each (temperature) tank showing the position
of each pot. Ensure that the soils and treatments have
been randomized within each replicate block.
A suggested code for marking each pot is:
Temperature Block Soil Treatment
(7 0 C
-
0 I
:; 0
.A :; 0 C
-
0
~ ~ o C
-
1 II :; 1
B :; 1 + :; 1 (+ NPK)
III
-
2 c
" z.
-N
-
2
~ + PK)
IV :; 3 0 ~ 3 -P
:; 3
+ NK)
-NP :; 4 (+ K)
I
\
.3
( v)
(vi)
(vii)
the calibration of the delivery rate of the spray
when the water tap is full open; .
the total quantity of water required to bring the
amount of soil required for the pot trial to field
capacity;
the amount of soilat half field capacity to be
packed into each pot;
(viii) the weight of a pot with polythene beads and hence
gross wei ght when contai ni ng 1/90 g wet soi 1.
Preparation of the Soil
Soil in the field condition is ground in the soil grinder,
where possible, and mixed in plastic garbage bins to ensure
that the sample is homogeneous.
A weight of field soil convenient for the trial (approx.
52 pots each containing #6n g of soil at Field Capacity),
is weighed on the steel yard and transferred to the concrete
mixer. The calcium carbonate required to bring the soil to
pH 6.5 is added and the soi 1 and CaC03 mi xed for a few
minutes.
(Care must be taken to add CaC03 slowly if soil is moist.)
Sufficient water is now sprayed onto the soil, while the
mixer is turning, to raise the water content to an
equivalent of field capacity.
The soil is then transferred to plastic bins, re-mixed and
taken to the glasshouse .
4 Patti ng (one opera tor)
The soil at half field capacity is then filled into the
labelled tared polythene plastic pots. It is essential that
the pots be filled in such a way as to result in the same
apparent density in each pot and to avoid any layering of
the soil*. Sufficient soil should be filled into each pot
to result in a total mass of soil at field capacity g.
(For this stage and all subsequent stages, only one
operator should carry out the entire stage to reduce varia-
bility caused by different operators.)
* demonstrator when swelling soils are used .
.. 5 Addition of Nutrients (one operator)
Nutrients are added according to the plan
Nutrient Plan
given:
Control
All nutri ents
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Treatment
0
1
2
3
4
5
minus N
minus P
minus Nand P
minus N, P and K
Rates
Ca(H2
P0
4)2*
H2
0
0.164
0.164
of Appl i cation
NH4N03 K2
S0
4
0.474M 0.079M
6 ml 2 ml
2 ml
6 ml 2 ml
2 ml
--
Code
o
1
2
3
4
5
CaC03
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
Na
2
MOOj II
2.05 g 1
2 ml
2 ml
2 ml
2 ml
2. ml
(
, ' ,
* Ca(H2P04)2 ; H20 is added as a solid l>" below'surface of soil in the pot.
xx Amount is that determined by "linear" Ca(OH)2 lime requirement method
and is added to the soil in the cenient mixer,' ,
II May be varied depending on known history of soil and identified trace
.element deficiencies.
NOTE that the phosphate is applied as Ca(H2P04)2 . H20 at the rate of
0.164 g 0.001 g per pot placed 1;;" below the surface of the soil in the
po't. This should be weighted into vials prior to setting up the experiment.
The other nutrients** are added in solution from automatic pipette syringes.
The appropriate aliquots of all solutions should be run into 150 ml beakers,
diluted to 10 ml and poured onto the pot.
N.B. Care should be taken to ensure that the total volume of water added
-- in the nutrients and washings of the beaker does not exceed the volume
.6
required to raise the soil in the pot to exactly field capacity. Weigh
the pot and add sufficient water to bring the soil to field capacity.
** Calculate the rate of application of nutrients in mg per pot and
in kg per hectare (relative to area of pot).
Sowing (one operator)
Using lettuce as the test crop, six pregerminated seeds (migonette
lettuce, Green variety) treated with "Coversan" are sown shallowly
about ),;" below the soil surface in each pot. Great care in handling
the germinated seed is necessary. They must be sown radical down-
wards and care taken that there is not varying soil density above
the seed .
. 7 Taring (one operator)
/
.8
Check the weight, add water if necessary to bring all pots to
common Field Capacity mass.
Finally, approximately 20 g of ~ y t h e n e chips is placed on the
top of the pot. All pots should be brought to a common tare in
the process to facilitate watering.
Establishment
When the seeds have established, thin out to 2 plants per pot
selecting plants of similar size, well spaced in the pot.
(Always sow down a spare pot of untreated soil for replacement.)
.9 Watering
The success of the trial depends on the care with which the
watering programme is carried out as even a temporary water stress
can lead to differences in yield. It is essential that students
adopt a rosterto keep the soil at field capacity throughout the trial.
After the 3rd week of growth, allowance for the wet weight of the
crop must be made. This is conveniently made by assuming a linear
increase in wet weight of the crop in all treatments other than the
"control" and "-P". (Total growth in these treatments may be so
small that the effect can be neglected.)
The following table will serve as a guide to the allowances to be
made for the growth of the lettuce in the Michaelmas term for the
+ treatment.
3rd week add 20 g to pot ,tare
4th
" "
40 g
" " "
5th "
" 60 9
" " "
6th
" " 80 9
"
" "
7th
" "
100 9
" " "
G101.4
Allowance must be made for applying extra water over the weekends
so that the plant will not experience water stress. The amount
to be applied can be estimated from the record of water losses.
A record of the water lost from each of the pots should be
kept throughout 'the trial and at the end a graph.made of the
weekly loss from the average of each treatment (based on means
of acceptabl e repl i cates) .
. 10 Environment Records
Ensure that solar radiation records, air temperature and
humidity records and soil temperature records are kept during
the trial.
Produce a graph of weekly solar radiation.
Also graph: Weekly average temperature
(MAX + MIN for 7 days) ;
2
Weekly relative humidity
(MAX + MIN for 7 days)
2
Weekly soil temperature in the pots as a function of depth .
. 11 Visual Assessment Scoring
Once a week representative plants from each treatment and soil
are to be scored in terms of relative vegetative production.
It is not easy to maintain a common scale from week to week,
and so it is suggested that a score scale of 0 to 5 is used,
where 5 is the largest plant on a particular day.
Note all symptoms that you are able to ;see: chlorosis,
mottling of leaves, red coloration of stem, etc. Consult
Wallace (1961) for symptom correlations .
. 12 Harvesting
All pots must be brought to Field Capacity about 2 hours
before harvest. Weighing tins must be oven dried and weighed
before harvesting.
Plants are harvested at 6 weeks by cutting at soil level with
a scalpel. Avoid the inclusion of polythene chips in the
harvested material. Since the number of pots involved is
small, both wet and dry weight yields of the plants should be
obtained. Harvesting should be completed in a minimum of time
and tins weighed rapidly to obtain accurate wet weights.
(Tin and plant weights should be taken to 0.001 g to overcome
errors with small plant weights.) The plant material is then
dried at 70
0
C in the forced draft oven, firstly for one hour
without removing lid to cause wilting. When dry after 2 days,
put lids on tins and cool, otherwise since plant material is
hygroscopic a desiccator must be used.
Weigh:, Determine mass of oven dry, dry matter per pot
Determine mass of water per g oven dry matter ..
For each treatment, select plants with average weight (to eliminate
false treatments) bulk the for each treatment, and store in
labelled polythene bags for subsequent anaiysis
13 Soil for subsequent analysis
Soil from some treatments will need to be stored for subsequent
analysis. These can only be specified once the dry weight data
has been obtained, but they will generally include treatments
that allow estimates before and after growing plants of:
(1) .p mineralisation and N status;
(2) P characteristics (both + P and - P pots),
(3) K characteristic (ONLY if responses).
DOOOOOOOOOOOO
2 Statistical analysis of results
Dry weight results should be examined statistically using
the analysis procedure outlined. It may be necessary to use
a missing plot technique if growth in some pots is zero.
2.1 A guide to the statistical analysis of a randomised complete
block factorial within temperatures Pot Trial (prepared by
the Department of Biometry).
The basic data is as follows:
2 soils;
6 chemical treatments which are quadruplicated (i.e., 4 blocks),
2 root temperatures (20C and 2S
o
C). These are not
replicated so there is no Between Temperature Effect;
The model for each temperature may be represented as follows:
where
K. 'k

=
i = block: i = 0, 1, 2, 3;
j soil: j = 0, 1,
k
11
S.

a.
J
a
k
(aa) jk
chern. treatment: k = a, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5;
is an effect common to all pots;
is the effect of the ith block,
is the effect of the jth soil,
is the effect of the kth chemical treatment,
is the interaction of the jth soil with the kth
chemical treatment,
is the remaining term which is
distributed with mean zero and variance cr
2

s
Prepare a two way table,. for each temperature, of treatment totals.
Chemical _Treatments
Soil Total
C + -N -p -NP
Soils j=O
X.OO
X.
Ol
X.
02
X.03
X.
04
j=l
X.
IO
X.
ll
X
.12
X
.13
X.
14
Chemical
X X X X X
Total 0 . 1 2 3 . 4
Sources of variation d.f. Sum of Squares
2. 2.
L. X. X
A. Between Blocks 3
l 1.
R --=
12 48
X2.
2.
E- X
B. Between Soils 1.
J
J .
-'-'-'- =. S
24 48
2.
X2.
Lk X . k"
C. Between Chemical 5 --=
C
8 48
Treatments
-NPK
X.Os
X
.15
X
5
Mean
Square
s.s.
d.f.
R/3
Sil
ciS
F
X
.0.
X
.1.
X
test
(R/3) 1/
2.
Sis = FI
(CiS) Is
2.
=
FO
F
2
D. soils x Treatments 5 s.C. s.c/s
2
(S.c/s)/s =F3
Residual variation
Total variation
where S.C. =
2.
L .LkX .k
J .J
4
33
47
E
X
48
- Soil Sum of Squares
E/33
2.
s
- Chern. Treatment Sum of Squares
E Total S.S. - Block S.S. - Soil S.S. - Chern. Treat. 5.5.
- soil x Chern. Treat. s.s.
i.e. E = Total - R - S - C - S.C.
(and s2 = Estimate of Variance) = E
33
It should be noted that the chemical treatments used in this
experiment are such that a difference between the Variance of
the errors applicable to the control and the Variance of the
errors applicable to the other 5 chemical treatments might be
anticipated. A decision to include or exclude the control
yields from the analysis might be made on the basis of the
relative yields. If the yields of the control are on average
less than one fifth those of the other treatments, exclude the
control. The exclusion of the control will necessitate
adjustments to the degrees of freedom.
The overall analysis includes the determination of interaction
effect with temperature. The observation on a particular
plot is now designated X
ijm
where m refers to the temperature,
and m = 0 at 20C. and 1 at 2s
o
C.
I
Sources of Variation
Between Block within temp.
Between Soils within temp.
Average Soil Effect
Soil x Temperature
Between Chern. Treatment
within temperature
Average Chern. Treatment
effect
Chem. Treatment x temp.
d.f.
3+3 = 6
HI = =?
1
1"
l O ~
5-,
5 ~ .
GIOl. 7
sinn of Squares
RO
+
R
1
So
+
Sl
~
ST
2 2 2
X X X
. 0 . .1. .
SA +
=
48 48 96
S -
T
SA
Co
+ C
1
= C
T
2
X2
X
.. k.
k = C
A
16 96
Soil x Chern. Treatment
within temperature
(s.C.) 0 + (S.C.) 1 (S,C')T
Average Soil x Chemical
Treatment
Soil x Chern. Treatment
x Temp.
Error
Total
Temperature
66
95
1
Note that the total sum of squares
.
2
EEX ok
J
jk 8
2
X
96
(average soil Sum of Squares)
-(Av.Chem.Treat.Sum of Squares)
=(S,C')A
(S,C')T - (S,C')A
2
EEEEXo
~ j k m
2 2
(EEEX
ijk
for temp. 20) + (EEEX
ijk
for temp. 25).
In order to compute the sum of squares in the overall analysis
it is necessary to prepare 2- and 3- way tables where the 3-way
table is a composite of the 2-way tables used for each temperature
as per next page.
Tests of significance of main effects and interactions are made
by a series of F tests with Error mean square as the divisor.
GlO1.8
m = temperature 0 1
Soils j - 0 1 0 1
Chemical treatments
k = 0 X.OOO X.IOO X.OOI X.IOI
- 1 X.OIO X.110 X.Oll .X.lll
2 X.020 X.120 X.021 X.121
3 X.030 X.l30 X.031 X.131
4 X.040 X.140 X.041 X.141
S X.OSO X.ISO X.OSI X.ISI
Soils j = 0 1 Totals
Chemical treatments
k = 0 X.OO. X.IO. X . O.
1 X.OL X.IL X . l.
2 X.02. X.12. X . 2.
3 X.03. X.l3 . X 3.
4 X.04. X.14. X . 4.
S X.OS. X.IS. X . S.
Totals X.O .. X.L. X ...
Temperature m= 0 1 Totals
Chemical treatments
k= 0 X .. 00 X .. Ol X . 0.
1 X .. 10 X . 11 X . l.
2 X . 20 X .. 21 X 2.
3 X .. 30 X .. 31 X .. 3.
4 X . 40 X .. 41 X . 4.
S X . SO X .. Sl X .. S.
Totals X .. 0 X .. 1 X ..
Temperatures m= 0 1 Totals
Soils j = 0 x.o.o X.O.l X.O ..
1 X.LO X.Ll X.l.
Totals X .. 0 X ... 1 X ..
' . GI01.9
2 Prepare a summary table of the average visual scores for each
treatment and soil .
3 . Prepare a summary table of the average weekly environment
of the plants during the trail.
.4 Prepare a summary table of average weekly water usage by
various treatments for each soil.
3.1 What would you conclude about the nutrient status of the soils
from the statistical analysis of the data?
.2 What laboratory analyses should confirm these conclusions?
.3 Why is lettuce used as an indicator crop? '
.4 Could this particular design be used for a leguminous crop?
.5 Does the Nitrogenous fertilizer offset the affect of higher
temperature? Does Nitrogenous fertilizer affect the wet
weight/dry weight ratios and the transpiration ratios?
.6 What is the significance of using soil in field condition
instead of drying at 70
D
C before use?
.7 Is there a relationship between water loss and either solar
radiation or relative humidity or soil temperature? Explain
the conclusions in terms of the surface energy balance equation .
. 8 Do the visual symptoms of deficiency correlate with vegetative
production?
.9 Can visual scoring be developed to replace actual
harvesting and weighing of the test plants?
4 Notes
(1) General to illustrate minus technique in field:
A.J. ANDERSON (1946) - Fertilizers in Pasture Development
on Peat Soils in the Lower South-East of South
Australia. J.C.S.I.R. :uL: 394-405.
or A.J. ANDERSON (1952) - Testing pastures for mineral
deficiencies. C.S.I.R.O. Rural Research .
(2) JENNY, E.A., VLAMIS, J., & MARTIN, W.E. (1950) -
Greenhouse Assay of Fertility of California Soils.
Hilaardia. 20: 1_
(
G101.10
(3) STEFANSON, R.C. & COLLIS-GEORGE, N. (l974) - The
importance of environmental factors in soil
fertility assessments. I. Dry matter production.
Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25: 299-308.
STEFANSON, R.C. & COLLIS-GEORGE, N. (l974) - The
importance of environmental factors in soil
fertility assessments. II. Nutrient concentration
and uptake. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25: 309-316.
(4) SPRAGUE, H.B. (1964) - Hunger signs in crops. 3rd edit.
Amer. Soc. Agronomy.
(5) WALLACE, T. (1961) - The diagnosis of mineral
deficiencies in plants by visual symptoms.
H.M.S.O.
1.1
2.1
.2
3.1
II
1.1
6102.1
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THREE METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE LIME
REQUIREMENT OF ACID SOILS (Item 1.2 (iiil, p. 1 of E62 A)
"Linear Lime Requirement Method" (fudified)
Procedure:
(1) Weigh the equivalent of 10 g OVen Dry (0.0.) < 2 mm,
soil into seven 35 ml centrifuge tubes.
(2) Then add the 1}50 Ca(OH)2 solution and deionized water to
the tubes as follows:
Tube No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
ml.deion.HgO
25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 15.0 10.0
7
5
M
Ca(OH) g
0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 15.0 20.0
(3)
(4)
(5)
( 6)
Close each tube with a well fitting.plastic cap and place
on shaking wheel for 1 hour.
Standardize the!'l.1s Ca(OH) g by titrating 5 ml 0.1 N Hcl
+ 100 ml COg free Sater in a 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask using
bromo-cresol green indicator.
Standardize pH meter.
Determine the pH of the soil suspensions after allowing about
5 minutes I settling time.
Construct a plot of suspension pH vs. volume of Ca(OH)g added.
50
Calculate the ';"quivalent quantity"of CaCo, in q, of caC0
3
per kg
0.0. soil to bring 1 kg of soil to pH (Twice the latter
quantity is empirically found to be the correct lime requirement for
growth of lettuce in the pot trial experiment.)
Would your result have been the same, if you had only'used tube No.s
1 and 6, as in the original linear lime requirement method?
Hutchinson-McLennan Method for Lime Requirement.
Procedure:
(1) Weigh the equivalent of 10 gros 0.0. < 2 mm soil into
three 200 ml centrifuge bottles. Add 100 ml of recently
filtered Ca(HC0
3
)g, secure the bottles with a firmly fitting
cap, and place on shaking wheel for 1 hour.
(The Ca(HC0
3
)g solution is made by slowly bubbling CO
2
into a
suspension of CaCO in water for 24 hours with occasional
stirring to prevent the lime from settling out. Just before
using, filter 'only as much 'of the Ca(HCOt)g solution as
* 'required. This solution is unstable and should also be
standardized immediate Iv before us:j_no_
III
GI02.2
(2) Fil.ter the 1. hour equilibrated suspensions through a
Whatman No. 5 filter paper, discarding the first few rus.
(3) Titrate 50 ml. of the filtrate with 50 m1 of standard O.I.
Hel, using green as indicator.
(4) Titrate 50 ml of the original bicarbonate (ca(HCO) }
solution in the same way. . 3 2
The difference in titre between (4) and (3) represents
the amount ca(IlC0312 that has reacted with the of the soil.
It is equivalent to the amount of ea.++ taken up by 5 g-
of soil. Explain why this is so.
(5) Measure the pH of remainder of Ca(HC0
3
'2 filtrate that
is not used in the titration and that of the original. Ca{HC0
3
' 2
sol.ution.
2.1 Calculate the lime requirement by the H.M. method in
equivalents of caco
3
per kg. of 0.0. soil and in 9 of caco
3
per kg 0.0. soil.
3.1
1.1
Exp1ain why this value is different from the value obtained
by the "Linear Lime Requirement Method".
BaCl, - Triethanolamine (pH 8) Method (Modified)
Procedure:
(1) Weigh the equivalent of 10 9" O. D. soil 2 mm) into three
200 ml centrifuge bottles, add 100 ml of approx. 0.25 -!!BaCl
Z
- 0.055 Triethanolamine pH 8 solution, secure with firmly
fitting and place on shaker wheel for 3 hours.
(2) Standardize the Bael
l
- TEA solution by titrating 250 mls
in a 500 ml Erlenmeyer flask with Standard O. 2 HCl,
using 5 drops of the bromocresol green-Methyl red indicator
in the 500 ml flask.
(3) After 3 hours, transfer the contents of the centrifuge
to a filter funnel, fitted with a flutted 11 cm
diameter Whatman No. 5 filter paper and collect filtrate in a
250 ml volumetric flask.
(4) Continue washing the soil that has collected on the filter
paper by adding small partions of the extracting solution at
a time until about 225 IIll of filtrate has
in ,the 250 IIll volumetric flask. Each portion of the
added extracting solution should be allowed to drain before
addition of the next portion.
(5) Make-up to volume (250 mls) with the extracting solution.
Pour the filtrate into a 500 ml Erlenmeyer flask, add 5 drops
of mixed indicator solution, and titrate with 0.2 Hel,
as stated in step 2.
(6) Rinse the volumetric flask with some of the titrated solution
and complete the titration.
N.B. With some soils the end point will fade (pH increases)
upon standing, owing to the slow dissolution of-aluminium
hydroxide, but this colour fading should be ignored.
G102.3
2.1 Let B equal the ml. of o. 2 ~ HC]' required to titrate 250 ml.
of the original extracting solution and let S equal the ml. of
0.2 M HCl required to titrate 250 ml. of the soil extract,
then L the lime requirement in g of caC0
3
/kg.of 0.0 . ~ 9 t l
2 1IlIIl) is? --.-.... _- ..
3.1 Compare this value with the values that you obtained in
Methods I and II above. What reasons can you give about the
different values that are obtained by the three methods.
Support your reasons by writing the appropriate chemical
reactions for each method .
. 2 A commonly used "rule of thumb
1l
is that a hectare furrow
slice of 15 em depth is equivalent to approximately
2.2 x 10
6
kg of 0.0. soil.
What bulk density does this "rule of thumb" assume?
Using your own lime requirement values, calculate the
metric tonnes of lime per hectare that each method
would recommend
. 3 Noting the fact that you used < 2 mID sieved soil in all of
your lime requirement methods I what would the effect of the
size fraction > 2 mrn have on your lime requirement value?
How would you correct the value that you determined in the
laboratory?
.4 Discuss the merits and disadvantages of all three methods.
Suggest the circumstances in which you might recommend one
method in preference to another.
G103.1
Effect of Consolidation on Emergence
1.1 Use the soil and pots from the pot tri al . . . . . .. x 2 soi ls
Remove soil to 4 cm (the original chemical treatment is
irrelevant) leaving 5 cm of consolidated soil in each pot.
.2 Sow 10 presoaked (16 hours) wheat per pot
on the layer of consolidated soils .
... x 2 varieties
. 3 Cover the seed with a known weight of aggregates x 2 sizes
( ~ - ~ mm) to form a 5 cm layer.
The aggregates would be wetted by mist spray and then
equilibrated at -100 cm for 16 hours before use .
. 4 The upper layer is then either left loosely packed
(estimate the bulk density from the weights in (3) .. x 3
Consolidate every third pot by adding a load equivalent
to 1000 g/cm
2
for 10 minutes - estimate p.
. 5
Consolidate the remaining third pot by adding a load
equivalent to 2000 g/cm
2
for 1 minute - estimate p.
Dupl i cate each treatment ...
plus extra pots without seed to _test for .
strength at t = 0 and at emergence, i.e. 4x3 .
. 6 Use torsional shear box to determine shear strength
of the surface layers at 2.5 cm depth, at t = 0
and at emergencejduplicated .
. 7 Place all pots in 20
0
c tank .
. 8 Count emergent shoqts daily for 14 days .
60 pots
in total
. 9 In laboratory at 20
0
C -- use tension t ~ b l e at -10 cm to find
viability of a batch of both cultivars which have been
presoaked for 16 hours.
2.1 Use analysis- of variance if necessary to determine the effect
of properties of surface layers (choose one day for analysis).
3.1 Briefly outline the various types of seed bed and/or management
practice to which each treatment corresponds .
. 21 Can a preferred management practice be recommended for either
soil?
.22 What are the restrictions on its use?
(

Determination of Particle Size
by Sieve Analysis
G104.1
Di stri buti on ..
1.1 Thoroughly mix the sample of material provided and using adry
sieving technique determine the particle size distributions
of 100 g aliquots. It will be necessary by trial and error to
find the range of sieves needed as the vibrator will not
accommodate all sieves.
(For a soil as distinct from a sand, the vibrator will
cause breakdown of some aggregate sizes. Sieving times of 4,
16, 36 minutes should be used and the means of each fraction
plotted against the Itime. Extrapolation to zero time will
give the original amounts of each aggregate size range.)
.2 Examine specimens of the most frequent sized particles using
the binocular microscope. Draw and describe these particles.
In particular note:
(1) if axes are of equal length
(2) if particles are smooth or angular
(3) if regular crystal gr0l1th is detectable
(4) if concoidal surfaces are present
(5) if the granules are stained, coloured or clean.
2. Present the results as:
.1 histogram showing fraction of sample plotted as a function of
particle size range;
.2 cumulative plot showing cumulative fraction of sample as a
function of increasing particle size.
(Use log scal e for size.)
.3 weighting of sieve analyses:
Sieve
Mean si ze Mass on sma 11 er First moment
Openings sieve
>a to a >a a 1.laa
a to b
a + b
a
2
a + b
a
2
b to c
b + c
2
y
b + c
2
'y
c to d
c + d
0
2
c + d
'0
2
e to etc.
m
La = 100 g
a
Laa
aa
1st moment weighted diameter =
La"
La
.4 coefficient of uniformity:
From plot 2): defi ned as si ze " 60% of fi nes
size - 90% of fines (or 10% coarse)
The smaller the number the more uniform the sample.
G104.2
3.1 How reproducible was the sampling technique?
.2 What is the principal source of error in the method?
.3 Calculate the pore entry pressure and the matric potential
at which the pores, in a close-packed bed of this material,
_ should fill using the 1st moment weighted diameter. .
Identify the assumptions necessary in your calculations .
. 4 What is the probable origin of the specimen as deduced
from its appearance?
Do you expect the angle of internal friction, $, (see
later experiment) to be greater than 30
0
?
4. Notes
.1 Dallavale, J.M. 1943. "Micromeritics". Pitman
Publ. Corporation, N.Y.).
1A
.1
.2
Variation of Shear Strength of Soils with
Moisture Content
. G105.1
A simple experimental apparatus is shown in the accompanying
diagram :- constant load - varying ~ .
The apparatus is set up so that the matric potential at the
plate surface is zero.
(In the case of soils that slake or disperse, the initial
matric potential should be <-50 cm.)
The cylindrical mould, provided with the equipment, is placed
upon the sintered disc and sand or fine soil carefully packed
into it.
It may be necessary to line the mould with a thin polythene
film if the mould cannot be subsequently removed without
deforming the sample. It is essential that the same degree of
packing, that is the same bulk density, 'be attained in each
experiment on the same material. Either overfill the mould
or use.an extra length of moulding to help in packing, and
consolidate after the sample is wetted by tapping .
. 3 The burette is firstly raised in order to saturate the
moulded sample with water, and then lowered in order to impose
a matric potential of -10 cm at the surface of the disc .
. 4 The excess soil above the mould is removed, the mould is
removed and the first stress experiment can begin .
. 5 Impose a known matric potential say -10 cm on the plate, .allow
to 'equilibrate until water movement ceases. The range of ~
used will depend on the moisture characteristic of the sand
but at least two values in saturated and two in partly drained
soil are required. The pore entry pressure (or grade) of the
sintered plate must be greater than the ~ imposed on the sample,
but at the same time the hydraulic conductivity of the plate
must be large enough to allow re-equilibration of water in
the sample when it fails and deforms .
. 6 Carefully place a mass M on a tared aluminium disc on the
top of the sample .
. 7 With a minimum of disturbance, increase the matric potential
(i.e. as a first approximation relative to the mid-height of
the specimen) in approximately 2 cm increments until the
matric potential for failure is approached. (This point should
be determined approximately in an initial exploratory
experiment.) Then proceed in smaller increments until the
sample fails. The best procedure for increasing the matric
potential is by adding water in approximately 2 ml increments
or less, to the burette, from a wash bottle. This avoids the
vibration that accompanies the movement of the burette.
(I) record the matric potential at which the sample failed, and
(2) the total load M' (=M + tared disc)
(3) Note the form of the failure pattern - brittle or multiple
shatter and
(4) where possible measure a the angle of the failure plane to
the vertical and
(5) height X above the plate corresponding to the mid point of
the failure plane.
\.
G105.2
.8 Remove all the soil from the plate to a tared container and
determine- (a) mass of wet soil (Mw + Ms) and after oven drying,
(b) mass of oven dry soil Ms.
This is needed for calculation of p as well as 6
g
.
. 9 Repeat the experiment (1.1-1.8) for the load, M, to get a
more accurate result in the light of the first experiment .
. 10 Repeat at greater I ~ I and hence greater load .
. 11 Repeat at a ~ where sample has drained. The above technique
(1.5-1.7) will need modification when the sample has drained
under the initial ~ :
in this case ~ will be kept constant and the load, M,
increased until the sample just fails. This will require
several repetitions of the experiment for each ~ to home-
in on the correct M.
N. B. is taken re 1 ati ve to mi d-hei ght of the
failure plane of the sample.
1B Constant $ -- varying load
A more sophisticated apparatus can be used to study the drained
part of the strength curve. In this case a lever with a
Mechanical Advantage of 2 is used to load the soil, ~ is kept
constant and M, the load, is applied by adding water to the
lever. The equipment is particularly useful for drained samples.
1C Routine measurements
(a) Shear Box -- engineering
(b) Unconfined compression test
(c) Torsional shear box
(d) Penetrometer.
See: Soils I E21.
.1 Field samples will be provided .
. 2 Soils samples should be prepared from sieved soil at various
6 and if possible, two values of P. They should be allowed to
equilibrate for at least 24 hours before testing. (It is well
documented that soil strengthens dn ageing.) The prepared
samples will need to be of various sizes to be used with the
above equipment.
The results from the various tests should be compared and, in
particular, the assumptions inherent in each calculation need.
to be noted.
G105.3
2.1 The effective major principalstress is
al = + + p(l + 6
g
)(L-X)
where the last term can often be neglected relative to the
first term. It is the overburden of the wet soil column
acting on the mid-height, X, of the failure plane of the
column of length, L.
Experimentally the third term =
(L-X) (Mw + Ms)
(-L-) - A
i.e = * + + (Mw ; Ms)
(check) .
L-X
-C-
.2 The effective Minor principal stress, a; =
.3 Analysis of the Mohr circle defines its center as a; + a;
and its radius as
2
.4 Calculate a
l
and a
3
for the saturated systems,
plot as in 2.3 and from the slope of the common tangent find
$ and the intercept, C.
-
(al
F =
- a3 )
cos
$
2
.5 - A
-
N =
( a, of" a
3
)
-
(al - a 3)
sin
$
2 2
- B
Combination of F and N yields for a cohesionless soil
11
al
-
a3
sin
4> = =
- C
11 + Za3 ai + a
3
where 11 is the deviator stress
-
= a
l
-
a 3.
Hence calculate 4> for each trial, find the mean value of 4>
and S.D. Redraw the eye-fitted common tangent of (2.4)
using the mean value of $.
From A and B, calculate F and N for the saturated sample.
Draw a graph of F vs. N. Give the Coulomb equation, with
constants, C and $ appropriate to your soil .
. 6 For the drained samples, fl <1, the deviator stress is known
but not a; or a; individually.
. 7
.8
11(1 - sin $)
However, from C, U3 2 sin 4> - 0
Hence calculate a;, and a; = a3 + 11, for each drained test.
From A and B calculate F and N values for each drained test.
Superimpose these values on the existing F and N graph for the
drained samples.
Calculate for each drained test where fl = a;
Graph F versus for the complete experimental range .
Graph F versus 6
g
. (Superimpose vs e on same graph.)
(If Moisture Characteristic is superimpose this
-,-- \
(
GIOS.4
3.1 Comment on the accuracy and reproducibility of the results
from 1A and lB .
. 2 Does the strength of a soil depend directly on its moisture
content or on its moisture potential?
.3 Why does a change in bulk density change the F - 8 or
F - I ~ I relationship?
.4 What difference will a change in the angularity or lack of
roundness of the soil particles make to the slope of the
Coulomb line?
.S If your soil were tested in the field and its matric potential
at sampling was -50 cm, what would be "the apparent "cohesion"
. 6
of the soil using the original Coulomb equation in an unconfined
compression test?
Your argument should consider the difference between internal
and external stresses. In the original Coulomb equation, N was
for external stresses only, and hence C is an apparent cohesion
which varies as T changes.
a is sometimes approximated to Sr the degree of
Does this approximation apply to your material?
a reason .
saturation .
If not suggest
. 7 Which methods in lC have undertain numerical interpretation,
when compared with experiments 1A and IB?
.8 Suggest situations when any of the methods in lC would be useful
for characterizing field soils.
4 Notes
.1 Collis-George, N. and Williams, J. 196B. Comparison of the
effects of soil matric potential and isotropic effective
stress on the germination of Lactuca sativa. Aust. J.
Soil Res. 7:91-8 .
. 2 Collis-George, N. and Lloyd, Jocelyn E. 1979. The basis for
a procedure to specify soil physical properties of a seed
bed for wheat. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 30:831-46 .
. 3 Lloyd, Jocelyn E. and Collis-George, N. 1982. A torsional
shear box for determining the shear strength of
agricultural soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 20: 203-11.
F C + N
1
01
-
2
2. = w
+
tan ~
o ~ 1
. GIOS.S
Shear 'strength of Soils


(1)
(2 )
- - -,---
(3)
~ ( 4 )
s s
(5)
Mohr-Coulomb Diagram
Cylindrical "brass load of
. Mass M
Aluminium disc
Approximate plane, in the
cylinder of porous
material, about which the
inclined failure plane
occurs. The matric
potential at this plane
is r = -h em of water
h em
Free water surface in
burette connected
through flexible
tubing to the sintered
glass plate.
The burette is free to
move vertically so that
any arbitrary matric
potential (within the
"limits imposed by the
mean pore size of the
sintered plate) may be
imposed
The unit of ern of water
=. unit of g/om
2
a stress term
since density of water
is unity
in effective stress units for a "cohesionless soil"
Coulomb equation in applied stress units.
cos rf! Coulomb equation in effective stress units.
~ where

is angle of shear plane.
Gl06.1
A. SOIL MOISTURE CHARACTERISTIC - THE VACUUM DESICCATOR METHOD
1 .. 1 Weigh a number of containers to 0.001 g. Transfer soil. at
sticky point to each of a series' of dry numbered and weighed
containers; keep the soll granulated; do not pack tightly
into the containers; the thickness of the layer must not exceed
Q 5 em Pl.ace each in one of a series of vacuum desiccators
he1d ata constant relative humidity .. (Four relative humidities and
duptication is sufficient,. ..
These desiccators, with their complement of soi1, wi11 be
evacuated to allow rapid equilibrium of the soil with the
controll.ed water vapour pressure. Onder constant temperature
conditions, two weeks should be' sufficient for equilibration
2 Open the desiccator, remove each container one at a time and
weigh quickly and accurately to 0.001 g. Do not 1eave the
soll exposed to the atmosphere before weighing
3 OVen dry, cool in dessicator and weigh to 0.001 g.
u woo 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0
2.1 Calculate the water content of each specimen .
. 2 The soil water potential, (in centimeters of water) in
equilihrium with a water vapour pressure p is given by the
relation
where
plpo
R
relative vapour
gas constant in
pressure at
-1 -1
J mol K
temperature TOK.
of water vapour.
g gravitational constant, and
M molecular weight of water_in kg mol
-1
In MKS units and at 25
D
c
5 -1
k9
-JI' = 3.12. x 10 10g
10
(p/po) J kg
(1J _ p.2 r.' V20
Note that since p > be negative, i.e. the free energy
is less than thatOof a free pure water surface.
calculate the water potentials equiValent to the relative
humidities used .
3 Plot the results for this experiment on the Bame graph and
3.1
with the same co-ordinates as the results for "The filter paper
equilibration method".
D DOD o 0 0 0
Explain conciselY the theory of the method.
.2 Do you know if the soil has reached equilibrium? How would
you test?
.3 Why do you evacuate the desiccator?
.4 What is the approximate moisture potential equivalent to that
of that of air dry sail?
.5 What is the advantage of using saturated salts in the presence
of solid salt rather than sulphuric acid solutions?
.6 What is the relative vapour pressure in equilibrium with M/20 NaCl?
.7 Why is temperature control important?
.8 Which components of the total potential of the soil water does
this method reflect?
(
G106.2
4. A table of some of the more common saturated salt solutions used
to obtain constant relative h ~ d i t i e s is presented together with
various' concentrations of sulphuric acid us.ed for the same
purpose.
Substance
CaClZ .6HzO
Zn(N03JZ6HZO
KZ
C
03 .2HZO
Ca(N03JZ
.4H
z
O
NaZCrZ07 .2HZO
NH"OH, KN03
NH"Cl
(NH"Jz SO"
KBr
ZnSO" .7HzO
NaZSO"
.10HzO
CuSO" 5HzO
Sulphuric Acid at 20C
S.G.
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
R.H.%
100.0%
93.9
80.5
58.3
Temp
20
Q
C
20
Q
C
20
Q
C
24.SQC
20
Q
C
20
Q
C
20C
20
Q
C
20
Q
C
20
Q
C
20
Q
C
20
Q
C
S.G.
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
ReI. Humidity
32.3%
42.0%
43.5%
51.0%
52.0%
72.6%
79.5%
81.0%
84.0%
90.0%
93.0%
98.0%
R.H.%
37.1
18.8
8.5
3.2
(
SOIL MOISTURE CHARACTERISTIC
Supplementary Exercises
B.. The Eeodoroff Field Capacity Estimation
6106.3
1.1 Fill a tube (10 cm high, diameter 3 em) open at one end and sealed at
the other end by a nylon gauze with "fine" earth to a depth of 4 em.
To pack homogeneously fill the tube slowly while continually tapping.
Stand the tube plus soil in 0.5 em of water and leave until the sample
is saturated .
2 Remove the tube plus saturated soil from the water. Place it on the
topmost surface of soil in a 400 cc beaker containing 150 cc of the
same air dry soil. It is essential to ensure that there is a good
contact between the soil in the tube and the air dry soil and that this
contact is maintained during the experiment .
. 3 Cover the whole apparatus with plastic sheet, to minimize evaporation
and also to help wedge the tube upright and leave for 48 hours .
. 4 At the end of 48 hours remove the soil from the tube and determine the
moisture content by weighing, oven drying and reweighing.
2.1 Express the results as gIg 0.0. soil and also as glunit volume.
3.1 What is the theoretical basis for Feodoroff's procedure?
.2 Has it proved useful for the range of soils you have worked with?
.3 What values of moisture potential does it appear to equate to?
.4 Would you recommend any change in equilibrium time?
c. The Determination of Wilting Point using the Sunflower Method
of Vei hmeyer
1.1 Thoroughly mix the soil at a moisture content of about half the value
of field capacity moisture content*. Take duplicate sub-samples to
determine the gravimetric moisture content .
. 2 Fill several weighed po1ythene jars with this soil towithin 1 in.
of the neck of the jar and weigh. Add sufficient water to raise the
soil in the jar fo approx. field capacity and plant 5 sunflower seeds
(HeLianthus annus drawf var.). Weigh the jar and contents. Place in
the greenhouse, leaving the lids off until the seeds have germinated.
.3 After germination, remove all but the best seedling and lead it through
the hole in the lid. Allow to grow, irrigate when necessary, until
three or four sets of leaves (in addition to the original cotyledons)
have developed. At this stage the plant will weigh 2-5 g. Place the
container and contents on a balance and add enough water to bring the
gross mass to a value equivalent to field capacity then add approx.
5 g additional to allow for the weight of the plant. Close the lid
tightly and pack cotton wool around the stem where it enters the lid.
Protect the sides of the jars from the direct rays of the sun
4 After sufficient time has elapsed, the first signs of wilting will
appear in the lower leaves and dropping of the next set of leaves
will follow rapidly. When all but the upper whorl of small leaves show
wilting symptoms, transfer the container and plant to a .darkened humid
chamber containing water in the bottom.
Gi06.4
.5 If the plant remains wilted after several hours in the test
chamber, the permanent wilting point has been reached. If
instead the leaves regain their turgor, remove from the test
chamber and wait until wilting symptoms again develop, then
test as before
. 6 When the permanent wilting point has been reached, cut off
the stem at the surface of the soil and weigh plant and
container separately .
7 Then oven dry the jar of soil at 1OS
o
C and reweigh to find
the moisture content of the soil plus roots.
Assuming (1
2
) that the roots contain 80% water by weight.
( ) the mass of roots equals half the mass of
stem plus leaves.
2.1 Calculate the soil moisture content at permanent wilting
point.
3.1 What philosophical advantage does the Sun Flower method
have over the purely physical procedures for determining
Permanent Wilting Percentage?
4 Note
.1 It is conveni ent and introduces 1 ittl e error to negl ect the
oven dry wei ght of the roots .
2 The number of repl i cati ons necessary for obtai ni ng the desi red
precision depends upon a number of factors, including the
technique of the operator and the properties of the soil.
The standard deviation is generally about 0.4% of the oven
dry weight, tending towards lower values for coarse-textured
soils and higher values for fine-textured soils .
. 3 *If the soil will not granulate at ~ F. Cap. so that the pots
would be filled with a coherent soil mass with little soil
air, mix the soil with up to ~ its mass of coarse sand.
The calculation of P.W.P. will need to be appropriately
rescaled.
(
G106.5
D The Pressure Membrane r ~ e t h o d
1.1 Use the pressure plate in exactly the same way as outlined
in FlB, for pressures of 1 bar, 3 bars and 10 bars
(i.e. 100, 300 and 1000 J kg-I).
Ei Sucti on Pl ate Method
1.la EITHER: Use the plate as outlined in the reference texts
listed in FIB to obtain 6g at -1 cm, -50 cm and -100 cm;
.lb OR: Use a sintered plate-hanging column as in the High
Energy moisture characteristic G105 at -1 cm, -50 cm
and -100 cm;
.lc OR: Use a pressurized sintered plate at -1 cm, -50 cm
and -100 cm.
Note: 1.lb or 1.lc are more convenient for a few samples
as the water is monitored by outflow and only one set of
weighings is needed.
1.la requires weighing at each moisture content but many
samples can be equilibrated simultaneously.
GW6.6
F
SOIL MOISTURE CHARACTERISTIC
COMPOSITE "CURVE.
1. Draw a smooth curve through the points obtained by the various
"Soil Moisture Characteristic" methods. . Note the curve .can
have alternate X axes 8g or Bvo .
Extend this curve to 10g
10
'1-1I: 1 = 7 (pF) noting that pF 7 is the
arbitrary value of potential. corresponding to oven dry moisture
content. (6g = 0).' Al.so extend into the range of low pF by
el} taking the moisture content and appropriate matric potentials
measured in the "The -high energy moisture characteristic"
experiment whe.t::e available and, (2) by using the results of
the bulk density or Hydraulic COnductivity cores to find porosity
at ponding and hence theoretical 6g saturation.
2. From this curve redetermine:
.1 The permanent wilting point moisture content
2 The moisture corresponding to field capacity
3 The available water expressed as gig oven dry soi1
4 The avai1able water expressed as inches,of water/inch of soil
and em/em.
3.1
Are these values significantly different to the single point
values?
Sketch the wetting scanning curve of the moisture
.2 To what extent is this curve dominated by the crumb size obtained
in the 2 mm fraction?
.3 What is the average relative humidity in agricultural soils to
nearest percent? What percentage of all gases present does
this represent at 20
D
C?
.4 Many plants begin to become inefficient, i.e., Net Photosynthesis
decreases relative to transpiration, when water potentials fall
to approximately -3 bar. In your soil what percentage of
availab1e water is efficiently used?
.5 If the daily evaporation rate is approximately 5 nun what
watering regime is needed for a crop with 50 cm rooting range
if it is to lie within a -1/3rd to -3 bar moisture potential
range1
.6 What parts of the characteristic are dominated by osmotic forces,
surface forces and capillary forces for your soil?
.7 Do osmotic effects contribute significantly to the moisture
potential at P.W.P. for this soil?
.8 If bulk density is changing with Bg Soils II F3A, F3B, F3C)
sketch on a new .diagram the moisture-air characteristics.
(Hint -- At each there is a Bv and an fair -- the sum of
these is the total porosity.).
(
GI07.1
THE STABILITY OF SOIL STRUCTURE TO QUICK AND SLOW W ETING
This method developed by E.C. Childs (1940), and has been
applied (1) to drainage systems which have a short effective
l.ife and (2) to reclamation sites particularly where the upper
horizons have been stored separately from underlying horizons
as we1l as i.n irrigation areas.
Basically the procedure is to compare the moisture characteristic
of a completely stable system (quartz sand) with the characteristics
obtained from the soil under study.
An arbitrary granular size (e.g. rom) is. chosen and used for
sand and soil. If the characteristics of soil and sand are similar
the soil granules are stable to the wetting procedure under test.
A. The "high energy moisture characteristic of sand"
1.1 Refer to the diagram in Figure 1. for'details of the
apparatus referred to in this script.
Before adding sand to the funnel it is convenient but not
mandatory to arrange the apparatus. by adding or removing
water from the burette and by adjusting the height of
the burette, so that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(hi - II)
H 70 CID
Vi = 40 cm
3
1.5 cm approximately
(approx) above bench
(approx)
top
Clamp the funnel firmly, do not move until after sand is
removed.
2 Measure out 20 crn
3
of the sand mm) and also weigh it.'
pour this sand into the water in the funnel of the apparatus.
carefully tap the funnel to pack and level the sand, and to
expel any entrapped air. Adjust the burette so that there
is about 2 rom of water standing above the surface of the sand.
Allow the system to reach equilibrium. i.e. for the water
levels in the burette and funnel to become equal
3 Record on graph paper, Vl and hI (i.e. the initial equilibrium
.4
values of Vi and hi)' (It will be convenient to allow-in the
plot for 15 .. cm
3
change of Vi and SO cm change of hi if 1.1 is
followed). See Fig. 2 for the suggested layout of. the axes
of the graph.
In addition to the concurrent graphing of results as the data
is also produce a table of results and derived
results with column headings,
bV
M
+
(the last two columns are respectively the coordinates 6g
T i of the moisture characteristic)
!
and
5 Lower the burette 2.5 em. Allow the system to come to static
equilibrium again. The levels in the funnel and burette are
probably still equal. Record and plot V2 and h2
6 Continue lowering the burette after equilibration, until the
meniscus height is level with the top of the sand, recording
V 3, h 3, etc, and plo tting the results.
1.7
G107.2
Then proceed in approximately 3 em increments until h. = 50 em
and then in 5 em increments to hi = 20 em = h final.. (These
are rel.ative to an initial hi of hi = 70 em)
Plot the equilibrium values of Vi and h{ after each increment4
For - mm sand equilibrium is generally reached in 10 minutes
up to hi = 50 em and is generally reached in 20 minu,tes up to
hi = 20 em
8 without moving the apparatus, remove a sample of sand and
determine its moisture content,
2 It can be assumed that zero matric potential. obtains throughout
the sample when the matric potential. at the surface of the sample
is zero, i.e. when the free water surface coincides with the
surface of the sample.
.1
The following procedure is illustrated on the attached specimen
graph Fig. 2.
From the graph determine the height (ha) at which water
ceases to be drawn through the sand and the latter is just
saturated. (This point is marked by a rapid change in slope
see Note 4.1). using this value of ha recalculate the scale
of the h axis in terms of matric potential Ti where
Ti = -(h
o
- hi) cm, on the original graph and complete the last
column of the table
2 Similarly the value of V corresponding to ho (which we shall
designate Vol represents the situation when the sample is
saturated with water, but with no free water above the surface
and is found from the coordinates of the graph at the point of
rapid change of slope
3 Vfinal is the volume of water in the burette corresponding to
.4
. s
the last equilibrium point hf and to 9gfinal. Hence complete
the third column of the table but do not calculate V for
values greater than Va - Vfinal. This latter volume
corresponds to water which was drained from the pares. Water
in excess of this was ponded above the sand and is not "soil"
water.
Calculate the final moisture content (9gfinal
as a percentage of the oven-dry weight
of the sample
Recalculate the scale of the V axis in terms of 9g, as in
the fourth column of the table. This follows from the
definition of the moisture content, 9g, that
where 99i is
V = Vii and
.Y.i. - Vfinal
M
9g. = 99
f
inal
, .
+
the moisture content of the sample when
M is the total mass of sand.
3.1 Explain the theory of the method
2 What is the effective mean pore radius of the sand?
.3 Sketch the prirM.ry wetting scanning curve of the sand. Assume
the sand to be composed of uniform spheres and close packed
as in Figures 2.8 and 4.5 of Blake (l967).
GIG7 3
3.4 What is the gas pressure (mbars) greater than atmospheric
pressure you would haye to impose in a pressure membrane
cell to caus-e the most common pore in the sand sample to
drain? - known as the pore entry pressure?
4 Notes
.1 The theoretical slopes of the Vi hi results when there is
free water above the sample i.e. from VI hI to Va ho is
equal to the ratio of the diameters of the burette and the
sintered funnel
. 2 This characteristic curve of the sand is now used as a
yardstick to compare .the behaviour of soils of initially
the same aggregate size.
Childs produced a second curve, the pore size distribution,
by plotting the slope of the characteristic, versus' i
[more properly this should be 1 1. . d'i
'i
See Russell, E.W. Soil Conditions and plant Growth, 9th Edn,
p427 (Longmans (1961.
de 1
Produce a table of d'i versus 'i .and TL in 5 em steps of 'i'
. de 1
Plot -- vs and identify the matric potential of the most common
dt. "
J. * L
pore, "'[ .'. What is its radius.? The dividing head of a drawing board
is the convenient and accurate way to measure slopes.
This is now superseded by 4.4 below .
. 3 A common mistake is to ascribe the slope of the characteristic
in the region 0 to -5 em Li to pore drainage. Examination-of
the relation
'{ = - .15/r
shows that if pores did drain in.this region they would be
larger than is possible. II Drainage " in this region is therefore
due to structural rearrangements, e.g. repacking, shrinkage,
and need not be taken into account when deriving the graph
in 4.2
.4 Collis-George, N. and B.S. Figueroa (1984). The use of the
high energy moisture characteristic to assess soil stability.
They introduced a definition of Structural Index = as
defined by the construction lines on GI07.5
It is not necessary to convert burette readings to 8g or 8v
if the same volume of soil/sand is taken in each experiment,
as the Structural Index is a relative measurement that allows
comparison of soils if experimental conditions are identical.
Note the construction lines are approximately parallel to each
other and allow for shrinkage as distinct from pore emptying.
l
Fig. 1
...
Burette ,.
Sintered 1:unnel
Sample
Flexible
tubing
' ....
'" ...... .
High energy moisture characteristic -
sintered funnel technique.
GI07.4
"
..,
.::,
11
e

...,
'"
'tl
...,
" W
.r!
"
W
>
"
0
u
'"
0
...,
w
>
.r!
...,
'"
.-l
W
...
...,
-"
0>
.r!
W
-"


u

.r!
C
W
e
a
r!
...
(
-"
.r!
.-l
. r!

0'
'"
o
'"
N
on
'" on
o
'"
GIO?5
EXPERIMENTAL POINTS AND MANIPULATION FOR HIGH ENERGY
MOISTURE CHARACTERISTIC OF SAND.
Moisture content 8g (final) 8g(a)
(
determined here (V final h final)
Va - Vfinal
6V + 8g (final)
I M


\

1\
'"\
I '''.
\
.

\
<
\
\
, "-,1tJ
k __ ............... _ .... _. >
\. \'''---. -- \
! -""\.

= 6V + 8g(final)
M
I & M = mass of sand
in funnel.
I

I
I
7J
\

\

.\ I Point (Va, ho)
'\/
(V' h'l
'["=0 -
11 ______

28
Fig. 2
30 32 34
Equilibrium volume of water in
burette (ml) [V iJ
36 38
G1D.7.6
B. COMPARISONS OF SOILS IN TERMS OF SOIL STRUCTUAAL- STABILITY 'TO WATER.
1.1
Q1.2
3 +.8
S1.2
The high energy moisture characteristic may be used to describe the pore
size ti{stribution of an undisturbed field soil, e.g. in a core or of a bed
of soil aggregates of a restricted arbitrary particle size.
It may therefore be used to measure changes in pore size distribution
consequent on a particular soil treatment relative to the behaviour of
an intert stable rigid material as a standard. (See N. C011is-George and
B.S. Figueroa 19B4)
For each soil prepare two samples of aggregates (Q and 5) of 20 cm
3
a.d. soil which lie in the range 1 rom to , rnm.
Weigh each sample.
Quick wetting: - Arrange the apparatus as for the sand experiment,
but with a slightly deeper layer of water in the funnel (2.5 cm
instead of 1.5 em). Pour in the soil Q making sure the soil granules
never build up above the water surface. Very gently level the surface
of the soil, do not tap or vibrate. Note the thickness of the sample.
If the depth of water is more than 2 rom remove with a pipette.
carry out steps A 1.3 to
be much longer than with
mount a cardboard slider
1.B as in G10?/1 The time invervals will
the sand. To test if equilihrium is reached,
on the burette and check the water level
movement every 10 minutes. Notice if dispersed clay comes through
the sintered plate. It may be necessary to run the epxeriment over
two days. In which case, use a connecting tube between the burette
and funnel to minimise evaporation.
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Slow wetting: arrange the apparatus to meet
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(hi - H)
H
v.
,
o - 50
70 em (approx) above bench top
20 em
3
(approx)
The funnel is not to be moved until after soil is removed.
Dry the inside of the funneL
(i)
(H)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Pour the soilS onto the relatively dry plate, level.
Note the thickness of the sample. Le.ave for 20 min;
Reduce
(hi
- H) to -30 em by raising the burette,
leave for 10 min.
Reduce (h. - H) to -15 em by raising the burette,
,
leave for 10 min;
Reduce (hi - H) to -5 em by raising the burette,
leave for 10 min. (DO not vibrate
the bench or apparatus during this
stage or the next one.)
Make the pressure +ve so that there is a layer of water
2 rom thick above the soil, leave for 10 min. The sample
is now 'saturated' and has been slowly wetted. Measure
its thickness.
.3+ .B Follow the procedure of A1.3 - 1.B in GlO?1. If the structure is
stable the drainage characteristic will be produced in 1-2 hours.
Q/S 2
3.1
.2
.3
. 4
(
.5
Notes:
4.1
c
.2
Determine 66 and Td for each system as in A4.4 where 66 is
volume of water that drains as distinct from water lost by
and Ld is matric potential at which the mean pore drains.
the stability index of each soil = 66
Td
G107.7
shrinkage
Calculate
Calculate the Stability Ratio for each soil relative to the sand of
the same initial sieved size.
o 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Why are sieved soil samples of same size us'ed?
Why is the moisture content of a soil greater than that of the
sand at all matric potentials?
Plot the basic moisture characteristics of G107.5 on one graph and
using the Stability Ratios from 2 determine if the soil is stable
to quick wetting or to standing in water (slow wetting).
Explain why the stability ratio can be greater than unity
Compare this result with (i) the aggregate' analysis experiment, GIOB.1
(ii) the S.A.R. results, G10B.6
and (iii) the slaking/dispersion test of Emerson
(1967) E42 Soil Science I Manual.
What differences to the experimental results would have developed
if the funnels are filled with M CaC1
2
instead of distilled water ?
.100
000000000000
Russell, E.W. (1961) - Soil conditions and plant growth. Chap. IX
pp427-B (Longmans Green, London) .
Collis-George, N., and B.S. Frgueroa (19B4). Aust. J. Soil Res.
22: 349-56.
No analysis of errors is needed for this set of exercises, as
generally the contrast between soils is very marked.
a 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(
(
G10B.1
AGGREGATE ANALYSIS
The degree of aggregation is arbitrarily defined by the ratio:
% of of diam. > d which area d
o u tlmate partlc es 0
There is no widely adopted arbitrary value for d; in these experiments
four. values, 0.002, 0.005,0.02 and 0.3mm; will be.used.
The extent to which the finer particles of the soil cohere naturally into
larger aggregates is important, and affects resistance of the soil to erosion
as well as affecting the rate of infiltration of water and the degree of
aeration of the soil.
An empirical measure of the degree of aggregation can be obtained by
subjecting the soil to a milder dispersion treatment and comparing the
particle size distribution with that obtained by mechanical analysis
treatment.
Many arbitrary procedures have developed and become standardized against
field correlations (N.B. Russel, 1947). In America, there has been a move
to standardize on wet sieving techniques (Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 1951 -
Report of Committee). For our purpose it is necessary to emphasize the
empirical nature of all procedures and the following techniques (1.1, 1.2)
should be compared on soils used in particle size analysis and in quick and
slow wetting, high energy moisture characteristics.
1.1 Use, in this exactly the same mass of oven dry sieved soil
as prescribed for the particle size analysis experiment, F2, in the
Soils II Practical Manual.
One sawpiemay be brought to an arbitrary moisture content, e.g. -100 cm,
before the analysis (discuss this with your demonstrator).
Transfer the appropriate mass of air dry sieved soil to a shaking
bottle, add 250 ml of distilled water and shake for one hour on the
wheel shaker.
Transfer with a minimum of disturbance to a 500 ml graduated cylinder
and make up to the mark with distilled water.
Measure the temperature of the-suspension.
Shake by inverting 30x, and using a calibrated soils hydrometer
measure the amount of suspended material remaining after 4 min 48 s,
76.8 min and 8 h or at appropriate times for the temperature of the
suspension.
The readings obtained represent, respectively, the quantities of
material finer than 0.02, 0.005 and 0.002 mm found to be 'disaggregated'
by this gentle treatment .
. 2 Sieve a second 10 g sample of dry soil through a 0.3 mm sieve, over
white paper, in small portions, at a time. Weigh the residue (M
2
)
which consists of all particles, ultimate and aggregated, of size
>0.3 mm.
The wei ght of aggregate of size >0.3 mm = (M
2
- Md g where. Mr is
the weight of ultimate particles,>0.3 mm size, found by particle size
analysi s.
(
,---
GI08.2
2.1 Express the results obtained in 1.1 as a percent of the hydrometer
readings obtained for the size fractions (0.02, 0.005 and 0.002 mm)
found by particle size analysis.
Calculate the degree of aggregation for the 0.02 and 0.005 mm size
fractions and the Ritchie Dispersal Index for the clay fraction .
. 2 Calculate the degree of aggregation for the results obtained in 1.2.
3.1 Why do you work with a sieved soil sample?
.2 Is the soil "stable"? What is meant by the term stable in this
context? Compare your with Quick and Slow wetting treatment
and with the S.A.R. results .
. 3 What effect did the initial moisture content have on the experiment
in 1.11 -
.4 forces effect "disaggregation" in the hydrometer method (1.1) as
compared with the dry sieving method (1.2)?
.5 Do the descriptions of aggregation obtained by the various methods
agree?
.6 Are the results consistent with the results obtained from:
% Exchangeable Cations,
Cation Exchange Capacity,
% Organic Matter,
Stability to Quick and Slow Wetting,
The field profile descriptions of structure.
4.1 Other methods in use are wet and dry sieving but the results are very
sensitive to small technique differences. The hydrometer method is.
useful in that it identifies stable microaggregates in the 20 to 5
range. The dry sieving technique is useful for identifying air dry
macroaggregates that are likely to resist mechanical forces as in wind
erosion and cultivation.
GI08.3
PARTICLE SIZEANALYSIS
The purpose of this exercise is to provide particle size information for
interpreting the results derived from aggregate size analysis, moisture
characteristic. plastic limits, etc. and for comparing estimates of the clay
fraction by hydrometer and pipetting procedures.
1.1 Follow the procedure of the hydrometer method F2 in the Soils II
practical notes .
. 2 Include in your hydrometer measurements a reading at 76.8 mm
. 3 Following the 8 h hydrometer reading, restir. the suspension and let
it stand for an additional 8 h
. 4 Fit a 10 ml pipette with a cork so that, when the cork is lying flat
on the mouth of the cylinder, the tip of the pipette just touches the
surface of the suspension. Measure the distance from the cork to the
tip of the pipette, then push the latter down so that this distance
is increased exactly by 10 em .
. 5 Fill the pipette slowly but steadily and transfer the sample to al
preweighed tin, weighed to the nearest O.OOOI g. Allow to evaporate
in a low temperature oven (70
D
e) or sand bath until almost dry. then
oven dry at 105
0
C overnight. Cool and reweigh. The weight difference
is 1/50th of the clay 0.002 mm) in the original soil sample .
. 6 After sampling. carefully pour away a major portion of the supernatant
suspension and follow the decantation procedure for separating the fine
and course sand fractions.
2.1 Calculate the suspension concentration in gllitre (R-R
L
), corrected
for temperature at each time of measurement
N.B. R = hydrometer reading of the soil suspension.
R
L
= hydrometer reading of the calgon solution without the soil.
If both Rand RL readings are made at the same temperature, no
temperature correction is necessary .
. 2 Calculate sunmation percentage, P%, as percent of original mass of
o.d. soil
N.B. %P = 100 CIC
o
where C = R - RL and Co is the original o.d.
wei ght of soi 1 .
. 3 Calculate particle diameter, d, in microns at each sampling time from
the formula
d = _B_
It
where t is in minutes. and
B = 1000[ 30 nh l ~
g(ps - P
L
) J
where h = distance in cm from the surface of the suspension to the
center of the hydrometer bulk, n = the viscosity, Ps = density of
the solid and P
L
= the density of the liquid .
. 4 An example, illustrating values of a at 30
0
C,_ is provided in the
following table: (where R is hydrometer reading of soil suspension)
R = -5 B = 50.4
~ =
-.25
aR
R = 10 e = 46.7
ae _
-.28
R = 25 e = 42.5
aR -
R = 40 a = 38.0
ae
a]l=
-.30
G108.4
2.5 This table, taken from Day or Black, is applicable at 30
0
C. These
values of e must be adjusted by square root of the if the
R value was not taken at 30
0
C. Values of viscosity versus temperature
can be found in Tables,' but approximate values are:
Temperature 15
0
20
0
25
0
30
0
Centigrade
Viscosity 1.140 1.005 0.894 0.801 Centipoise
2.6 Express your results in three ways as described in section 2.2 a,
band c of F2 in the Soils II Practical Notes, and also compare the
triangular plotting method of Toogood (1958) with that of Marshall
(1947).
3.1 What are the relative advantages of expressing the results in terms of:
(i) U.S. triangular diagram;
(ii) Marshall IS triangular diagram;
(iii) Histogram;
(iv) Summation curve?
.2 Why are the results from the two procedures (hydrometer and pipette)
not identical?
.3 What are the reasons and special circumstances for selecting one
procedure in preference to the other?
.4 With what other soil physical and soil chemical characters do these
resul ts correlate for the profiles?
.5 What % waterat-15 atmospheres potential would you predict from the
clay content? (see Nielsen & Shaw)
.6 What % water at field capacity would you predict from the clay content?
(see Burrows & Kirkham)
.7 What pedological processes do the results suggest? Are these consistent
with the parent material and other soil forming factors associated with
this soil?
Refer to Stace et al. and identify the appropriate soil.
4. Notes
Baver, L.D. 1965. "Soil Physics". Wiley, N.Y. Chap. 2.
8urrows, W.C. and Kirkham, O. 1958. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 22:103.
Day, P.R. 1956. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 2D:168.
Marshall, T.J. 1947. C.S.I.R. 8ull. No. 224.
Neilsen, O. and Shaw, B.T. 1958. Soil SCi. 86:103.
Stace et al. 196B. "Handbook of Australian Soils". Rellim Publ. Co. Adelaide.
Toogood, J.A. 195B. Can. J. Soil Sci. 38:54.
8lack, C.A. 1967.
Loveday, J. (ed.)
Comm. No. 54.
Methods of Soil Analysis. Agron. Monograph 9.
1974. Methods for Analysis of Irrigated Soils. Tech.
Conmonwealth Agricultural Bureaux Farnham Royal.
,
,
THE RELATION OF SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO' AND CATION
"EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION" TO AGGREGATE STABILITY
1.1 Using about 20 9 of the IIfine
li
earth, preparei (1) a 1/5 soil water
suspension and (ii) a saturation mixture as defined by the water
content of the upper Plastic Limit, Notice if the soils are either
dispersed or flocculated on allowing the 1/5 suspension to sand for
lz hour.
Filter the 5011 water extract using a macerated filter paper pad and
buchner funnel where the sample is dispersed, and by gravity filtration
where the sample is coagulated. Some improvisation may be necessary to
obtain sufficient extract from the saturation mixture for the subsequent
analysis,
Analyze the extracts for Na, K, Ca and Mg as per Soils II Manual.
N.B. That suppressants will be required for the analysis of Ca and Mg.
2.1 Calculate the r (soluble cation) and the S.A.R. in m-equivalents per
litre for each soil water ratio.
Di spersed
S.A.R.
Coagul ated
Fi g. 1.
r Soluble Cations m-equiv 1-1
.2 Given that the slope of the line in Fig. 1 is 4/1 for kaolinite,
III for illite and 1/4 for montmorillonite, plot the results for
the appropriate clay type (obtained from Cation Exchange Capacity
and Mechanical Analysis data).
3.1 Is the soil dispersed in terms of this relationship for 1:5 'extracts?
.2 In what way does the relationship differ for saturation extracts as
soil:water ratio changes?
.3 What effect would Organic Matter have on the slope of the relationship
S.A.R. vs ~ soluble cations?
PLASTIC L I I ~ I T S
A. Lower Plastic Limit (LPL)
The lower plastic limit is defined as "the lowest moisture content, expressed
as a percentage of the weight of the oven-dried soil. at which the soil can
be rolled into threads 1/8 inch in diameter without the thread breaking into
pieces" -- Atterberg.
1.1 Prepare a stiff paste of the soil, roll a small amount on the glass
plate, lightly beneath the fingers. If a long, limp thread is formed,
which does not break 'into small pieces, it it too wet. Add more dry
soil to the mass and rework until uniformly moist. Retest
. 2 If it is too dry, it will crumble before threads can be formed. At
the required wetness, the slight loss of water on rolling will cause
crumbling of the threads. When certain that the whole mass is at this
moisture content. detennine the moisture content by weighing and .. oven
drying.
(
GI0B.6
B. Upper Plastic Limit (UPL) (or Liquid Limit)
The Upper Plastic Limit is defined as lithe moisture content at which a
V-shaped furrow in a cake of soil in a dish will just begin to exhibit
flow when sharply jarred by hand" -- Atterberg.
(This test as defined does not specify the number or intensity of flows.
These requirements have been catered for by a standard but empirical apparatus,
Liquid Limit Apparatus, used'by engineers.)
1.1 Thoroughly mix a sample of air dry, fine soil weighing approximately
100 g with distilled water to produce a thick paste
2 Place a portion of this paste in the brass cup of the liquid limit
apparatus and level it to a maximum depth of 1 em diameter through
the center of the hinge at the same time holding it perpendicular to
the cup .
. 3 Turn the crank of the apparatus at the rate of two revolutions per
second and count the number of shocks required for the two parts of the
sample to come in contact over a length of 1.3 em .
. 4 Remix the soil and repeat the test until two consecutive. tests agree
within two shocks .
. 5 Record this number of shocks, and defennine the moisture content of
a SUb-sample of the paste.
.6 Bring the paste to a different moistu're content by adding distilled
water and repeat the experiment .
. 7 In all, four moisture contents shOUld be chosen which effectively
span the interval from 10 to 50 shocks.
2.1 Plot the results as the logarithm of number of shocks against moisture
content. a I on semi-log paper. and draw the best fitting line through
the
The liquid limit is the gravimetric moisture content equivalent to
25 shocks.
3.1 Calculate the plasticity index =UPL - LPL
.2 Activity is defined as
Index
Does this vary down the profile in the same way as aggregation or
Ritchie's Dispersal Index?
.3 Refer to the Plasticity Chart and the Unified Soil Classification Chart
cited by Ritchie and determine the Soil Group to which your soil belongs.
A Discuss its possible use as an earth dam construction material.
4. Notes
Collis-George, N. and Laryea, K.B. 1972. Aust. J. Soil Res .!.Q.:15-24.
Collis-George, N. and Smiles, O.E. 1963. J. Soil 5ci.14:21-32.
Emerson, W.W. 1967. Aust. J. Soil Res. 5:47-57.
Evans, 0.0. 1954. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.l0:12.
Quirk, J.P. and Schofield, R.R. 1955. J. Soil Sci..:163-7B.
*Ritchie, J.A. 1963. J. Soil Cons. 5erv.N.5.W. 19:111-29.
Russel, M.B. 1949. Soil Sci.6B:25-35.
*This reference must be stUdied. Ritchie used 2 hours to determine
",,0.002 mm presumably following a mistake in the 1958 IVth
Vear Soils Practical Manual which reproduced the original Bouyoucos method.
G109.1
Determination of (1) Solid Density and (2) Bulk Density.and
Pore Space Relations of non-swelling soils
I.A To determine true density of soil solids of all materials.
See: ES, Soils I .Practical Manual
B The bulk density, solid density and pore space relations
of non-swelling soils:
Weigh 50 g of dry "sand" into a measuring cylinder.
Tap cylinder until the sand attains a minimum volume. Note
this volume.
Pour sand into a beaker. Place 50 ml of water in the
measuring cylinder, add the sand and tap to pack the sand
and to remove air bubbles.
and water.
Note the total volume of sand
2. Calculate:
.l The bulk density of the sand;
.2 The solid density of the sand;
.3 The percentage porosity of the sand;
.4 Estimate mean, s, and cv%.
3.1-ft Discussion and conclusions of ESt Soils I Practical
Manual (4 questions)
.5 Compare the values of the solid density determined by the
two methods .
. 6 Is the porosity consistent with close packing of ultimate
particles?
Close packing of spherical solid particles yields a porosity
of 0.30 whereas open packing has a porosity of 0.476 .
. 7 Ske tch a "shr inkage curve" for this rna terial .
. 8 Calculate the void ratio .
. 9 Comment on the accuracy and reproducibility of the two
procedures.
4. Notes
.1 The bulk density methods and the paste shrinkage
experiment of F3 Soils II practical course should be
consulted .
. 2 Dallavale, J.N. 1943. "Micromeritics". Pitman Publ.
Corp., N.Y .
. 3 The major error is associated with the transference.
a) Use a polythene funnel with a short stem.
b) reuse the relatively clear fluid in the flask several
times if need be, leaving the larger particles in the
flask.
(
(1-)
EXERCISE 2
::J.l AI/f
To determine the air dry moisture content of Boil.
2.2 METHOD
N.H. Experimaut extends ovar 2
determination in duplicate.
Carry out the
Take 2 dry aluminium "leighin8' tins with lids and label
both with name and duplicate letter (A and B) using
felt pen:J with heat-proof ink. 'Haigh tha tins and
racord the maximum precision error of the balance (for
the Mettler balanceB this error has a
minimum" valua of 0.03 g and applies to every da term-
ination). Place about 35 g air, dry 2 mm) soil in
each tin aU'd weigh again; record the' error .
Place in an at 105c on the shelf allocated to
. your group. After 41? houts cover the 1':1n with the lid.
remove from the oven, and place in a.desiccator.
When.cool",weigh again and racord the error.
2.3 RESULTS
LAYER NO
Quantity Units A n
Precision
M Errors
ax
%,
Haso air dry soil
+
tin
g
Huss oven dry Boil
+
tin g
HasB tin
g
l1:u6 S water lost g
l1a88 oven dry 80il g
Gravimetric moisture
content
Hg
gg-l
(
E2
(ii)
2.4 CALCULATION
A. Errol's
The ruies for calculating maximum and percentage pre-
errors are:
(i) When adding or subtrattiiig experimental quantit-
ias add maximum pracision errors. Maximum
precision <!rror!l nre 11 charaetaristic of each piece of
and arc usually sdecified by the
Hhen multiplying or dividing experimental
quantities add percentage
Percentage precision error
max. ; precision error-
experimental quantityX
100
The essence of duplication is that sample A and B be of
similar . .size and be treated identically.. It is there-
o':'ly necessary to. calculate errors ior one sample.
For si..IJ{plicity percentage errors are recorded .to near-
est percent. Al'>7ays complete error calculation
as tha experiment proceeds. N.B.This method of calculation
over estimates the maximum precision error.
B. Answers
Calculate the gravimetric moisture content
9
g
c Ha Ds
Has S ovan dry
aud o-ecord in Table of 2.3
Calculate mean 6 =
B
A + B
2
soil
Calculate maximum precision error in Bg
+_ %. Precision Error Bg
- 100 x
practical experimantal error -
A - B
A + B
(
., , H':,. :.
1 AI [-I
(1.)
IlXRRCISE 5
Datel'minaUOll of -Gl'uail.cnnity of 8Qit 80UdaP
D
1.2 N8TEIVD
Iloigh a 400 Dl boaker and placa about 20 B air' dry soil
in it and weigh, Il.dd 30 ml water to t.ha ao11 in the
henker nnd boil for 2-3 minutoa. Allow to cool.
Fill n 1.00 rol volumetric fl.ask .\11th water to truL
gradua tion mark mid 'wai B11 it.. Erop ty the flask',
Tranafer nll tho 60il salida to the flaak.
Hake up to the graduation mark. and reweigh.
Rocord thc datn in the. table balowl
S,3 RESULTS:

Units t-. B C
Max
Haes oI'
KaBB o.f b-e'aker
+
dry io:Ll ..
HnaE air d'ry soil
.
(I,.. 8 a f' 'oven d'ry
Boil*
lIa88 11aak
+
.oil
+
water
lias s' 'fla8k
+
water
llas8,of water
'-
displaced by
aoil
"*
'rruo dnnBi ty. 60il
Bolida
p.
***
* Calculate the mnss of"'ovcn dry 'soil aquivn.1ent to
the masu of air dry Boil u8cd in the abova
68 Wfl8 dctermined in Exerciae 2.
II. B 1 g oven dry Boil
-
(
1 +
6g)
!l
air dry soil
t
B
air dry Boil
a'
t
dry Boil

( 1+6!!)
g ovc.n
"*
***
are defined on the
fa llo"ing page.
"
or,rare
X
"
.5.
5 .
(U)
** Calculate the volume of the Boil solids
mass cf displaced by the solids (PR2
0
" 1).
(mass flask + water) + oven dry mass of ioil used -
(maas + soil + water)
c
oven dry soil solids
volume soil solids
The densities of some soil constituents are given belowi'
Soil Con-ati tuen ts
Qu"artz
lCandi te
Sl!lectite
Goethite
Hemstite
Feldspar
Air
Soil Organic Hatter
DISCUSSIOH AND CONCLUSIONS
denaity Ps
2.59 - 2.66
2.60 - 2.63
2.80
4.00 - 4.40
4.90 - 5.30
2.56.
0.0012
1. 2 1,5
Comment on the value of the soil solids (Ps)
of your in the light of the table.
Will the deriGity of soil solids (n ) depend on the
tel!lpcirature used to define 8g oven
S
dry7 Consider
temperatures from BOoC to 300
0
C.
5
(iii)
Why is the determination of the density of soil solids
(ps) carried out?
What conclusions can you d r a , ~ frota Ps about tha physi.cal
properti.eo of your soil?
F3A/2
Pore Relations of.a Core
3.1 Will th'e bulk density of this soil be limiting to plant growth in either
moisture state?
3.2 Will the aeration of this soil be limiting in either state? Why?
3.3 Calculate in em the total amount of water, at the time of sampling,
contained in the soil layer with which you are working. .
3.4 Compare the 0.1 bar result with the value obtained in F1B.
Notes:
4.1 The main source of error is the contact between the base of sample and
the equilibrating potential. The inevitable consequence is to restrict
drainage from the sample and give rise to an enhanced ego
4.2 In same situations up to 12 replicates are needed to obtain a reliable
estimate of the bulk density which is sensitive not only to sampling
procedure but to climatic and management practices.
4.3 If swelling has occurred in 1.4. Comparison of weights gives the propor-
tionate swelling.
4.4 ps can be estimated by assuming the mineral sol ids have a density of
2.65gcm-
3
and soil organic matter has a density ofl.49cm-3(See Soils r,ES).
hence pS = (100 - (0) x 2.65 + OM x 1.4 9 cm-
3
100 100
where OM is % of organic matter oven dry soil as estimated in F4A.
F3A/1
PORE SPACE RELATIONS OF A NATURAL SOIL CORE
Measurements are often carried out on samples which are collected when the 5011 is
in "Field Capacity" condition.
When this is not possible the samples are examined both in the field condition and
after equilibration at 0.1 bar.

The procedure for the standard determination and calculations is listed in E10 pages
(i) and (ii). The fo110wingmodifications should allow field and 0.1 bar conditions
to be examined for each core.
*
1.2
If the core of soil in the cylindrical samp1er has not been trimned in the
field, trim sharp knife, so that the soil is level with the ends of the
tube.
N.B. The cores are NORMALLY trimmed in the field and would not be trimmed
again in the laboratory. Ensure that all soil in the plastic bag is incl-
uded in the analysis. -
Label clearly. Weigh on a K7 balance.
1.3 Fasten a fine nylon gauze around the base of the corer. Place in a dish
w i ~ h a 1 cm layer of water and allow ~ o wet for. one day.
1.4 Place either in a Pressure Plate at 0.1 bar or on a suction table. In
either case a layer of very fine sand is needed between the sample and
the plate/table to ensure good contact.
1.5 Allow to equilibrate for 2 weeks:- this will be carried out by lab. staff.
Remove the nylon gauze carefully, and weigh, (retrim if necessary and reweigh
1.6 Remove the trimmed sample of 5011 from the'corer using a spatula and knife.
Transfer to a weighed dry beaker
. Weigh the beaker plus soil.
1. 7 Measure, with calipers, the internal dimensions of the sampler. Each dim-
ension should be measured at least twice.
1.8 Dry the soil in' the beaker in a well ventilated oven at lOS
o
C for 24-48 hrs.
Cool in a desiccator, and when cool, weigh the container and oven dry soil.
2 Calculate:
2.1 The gravimetric moisture content, 8
g
, of the soil core in field condition
and at 0.1 bar.
2.2 The bulk density, p, of the soil in both conditions;
2.3 The pore space relations of the soils, in both conditions:
(i) the volumetric moisture content, B
v
' where
Volume of water
8V = Total volume of soil
(ii) the volumetric content of solid, pIps
JL.. = Volume of 5011 solid
Ps Total volume of sOlI
For this calculation use the result of the determination "The Density of
Sol1 Solids"ES from Soils I. Failing this,-see Note 4.4.
(iii)
the volumetric air content, fair
fair = Volume of air
IOtdl volume or soil

F38/1
PORE SPACE RELATIONSHIPS' OF AN:IRREGUUIRLY SHAPED' AGGREGATE
. '\'lAX' BL8CK 'PROCEDURE
The wax block procedure is primarily used to determine the volume of irregular
shaped objects, such as soil ,aggregates and deformed blocks from the shrinkage
curve experiment.
l.l Tie a length of thread to the block of soil and it. Quickly
dip this block in wax at a temperature just above the melting point
of wax, taking care that the wax is not too hot. The wax covering
must be complete so that water cannot enter the block subsequently
but neither must the skin of wax be excessively thick. Weigh the
wax covered block in air. Hence the mass of is known.
N.B. For moist samples from the shrinkage curve experiment it may be necessary
to wax the block before tying the thread on. Take the block and quickly dip half
in paraffin and allow to dry. Holding the waxed half, quickly dip the unwaxed
part into the wax. Examine the block to ensure a seal has been made at the wax
junction. Tie a length of thread to the waxed block.
2.2 Heigh a beaker of water on a top weighing balance, and then record the
weight when the wax covered block is suspended from a fixed support and
wholly immersed in the water. By Archimedes' principle, the apparent
increase in weight of the beaker of water is equal to the volume of the
wax covered bloc k.
2.3 If the soil is not o.d. the moisture content must be determined. Peel
off the wax to produce as large a mass of wax free soil as possible.
Place the soil in a tared container and weigh.
Over dry and rewe,igh.
2.1 The volume of the block equals the volume of the block plus wax less the
volume of the wax. (Assuming the density of wax to be 0.92 g cm-
3
and
knowing the mass of wax, the volume of wax can be calculated.)
2.2 The moisture content of the original mass in 1.1, so that the mass of
water and hence the volume of water in the original aggregate can be
calculated.
2.3
Follow the calculations outlined in F3A to find the
hence the volume of air in the original aggregate.
as the fractional volumetric content of each phase.
vol ume of sol ids and
Return the results
3. See F3A.
, 'Notes:
4.1 The wax used is:
A mixture of paraffin and moulding wax which, has low shrinkage when solid-
ifying.
F3C/1
THE SHRINKAGE CURVE OF A SOIL PASTE
No soil is completely structure1ess. By convention a soil system which has Noids
attributable to the ultimate particle size distribution and riot to aggregate par-
ticle size distribution is said to be structure1ess or to have on1y a textural
porosity as distinct from a structural porosity
1.1 All students working on one layer will corporately carry out this exper-
iment. Homogenised soil from each sub site in the layer will be mixed
to produce 1500 g of fine soil.
1.2 Prepare a thoroughly mixed soil paste consisting of about 1500 g of xine
soil to which is added a known amount of water sufficient to attain a
consistence approximating that of a saturated soil paste*.
Lightly grease eight dry, labelled, aluminium weighing tins and weigh them
on K7 balance.
Transfer the soil paste into these containers, tap them gently to expel
air bubbles and strike off the excess paste level with the top of the con-
tainer using the back of a spatula. Weigh all containers plus paste plus
1 ids.
1.3 One sample is used to determine the specific volumes of both the saturated
paste and the oven dry paste:
Immediately after weighing one container of. paste, air dry for several days,
follow this by oven drying to constant weight at 105
0
C. {This procedure
reduces the cracking that is likely to occur if the paste is rapidly oven
dried}. The container plus the o.d. soil disc then cooled in a desiccator
and we i ghed.
The original volume of the paste is equal to the volume of the container.
This is determined from measurements of height and diameter, using calipers
{at least four readings are required}. The final volume of the oven dry
soil block must be determined using calipers or the modified Archimedes'
principle described in F3B.
1.3 The other samples are treated as follows:
Drying Technique:
It is convenient to plot the shrinkage curve with experimental results
spaced. at approximately equal intervals along the moisture content axis.
The following method achieves this:
The water content initially in each container of the soil paste is approx-
imately known from the initial preparation if air dry moisture content is
taken into account. Then, for each container, an equilibrium moisture con-
tent is calculated so that the several tins produce approximately equal
increments of moisture content over the range of moisture contents from
saturation to oven dry. [i.e. for 7 there will be eight equal increments
of water].
Calculate the changes in weight {container + soil + water} necessary to
achieve the required moisture contents. The containers are dried and
weighed individually, until they reach a total weight which is consistent
with the required change. Once this total weight is reached, further loss
of water is prevented by placing the lid on the container.
Allow to equilibrate in the closed tin for at least 24 hrs.
1.4 Measurement of. specific volume:
The block of soil will in general, be sufficiently coherent to be removed
from the container. The volume is measured either with calipers or by
using Archimedes' principle F3B.
Note that all wax must be removed from the block before the oven drying pro-
cedure if the wax block technique for measurement of volume is adopted.
*Refer to U.S.D.A. Handbook 60. "Diagnosis and improvement of saline and
alkaline soils" {1954}, p84.
F3C/2
1.5 The block is then returned to its container., re-weighed, and oven dried
to constant weight at l05
0
C. Cool the tin and .contents in a desiccator
and re-wei gh .
. 2. Calculate for each pair of samples at each stage in the drying sequence:
2.1 the equilibrium moisture content, 6g
2.2 the equilibrium specific volume, lip
2.3 Plot (l/p) versus 6g.
3.1 Does the soil show residual shrinkage?
3.2 At what moisture content does normal shrinkage begin?
3.3 Divide into the three phases. Hence find the pore space relationships
at the 6g " "Field Capacity"
3.4 Plot the results for the field core on the same diagram. What is the
significance of the core results not being coincident with the paste
line? .
3.5 To what other soil properties is the shrinkage curve related?
3.6 How would you determine the shrinkage curve of a field soil in undisturbed
condition?
Department of Agricultural Chemistry
& Soil Science
Soil Science 4 (Agriculture)
Soil Science 3 (Science)
. M.Agric. in Soil Science
"Advanced'; Soil Methods:
Techniques of measurement; how they work;
for .what purposes; how they are interpreted.
Aim: To provide an appreciation of a selected number of - .
laboratory - and field techniques that are frequently used In certaIn
specialized - and applied areas of soils research.
Lectures
Physical Methods
ASSESSMENT
Practical reports
Examination
40%
60%
2/3 Particle size analysis (PSA) of the clay fraction and fractionation by
centrifugation techniques.
4/5 Specific surface area measurements by N
2
, H
2
0 vapour., ethylene
glycol (EG) and ethyieneglycol monoethylether O;:GME).
6/7 Thermocouple vs. tensiometric methods for field measurements of
soil water potentials.
9/10 Gamma-neutron probe methods for measuring soil moisture content
and bulk density in the field.
11/12 Thermal conductivity and time domain reflectometry (TOR) methods
for monitoring soil moisture content in the field.
Physical (Chemical Methods
13/14 Measurement of redox potentials, Oz diffusion rates (ODR) and
Oz/CO
z
concentrations in soil media.
15/16 Selective ion electrodes for measurements of ion activities in soil
solutions.
Mechanical Methods
17/18 Mechankal measurements of soil properties: Atterberg limits
unconfined compression; compaction, oedometer and penetrometer
tests.
. l t'tler-/;illli =./i'elc/Co.;'ac e.O(!/ftlt
/af.8?IJUfJlVS, W',C.Clndkirk)wmlJ ..
.. wdko.. .. '
_ ....... ___ ... ............. _ .. ___ .. ___ .
. . {J1f . == ...6, ('9 f()," 3 3/1,0 )(
r-c em' ?v/}a/.r..J.il
................... - .................................... --................................. _-_. wAoleuN-
_ .... am(f- t4 tArt .'
,Cjitlmr r Cive,/clty S{)l/ ter- Cln
3
__ .....
Mulf'tf.t.. R '" 93:1. $i;riliYJIJLall%:'&t.
.(iyyo.t./, MLva 'l> Clay 'f 6? 1'.:..- 1;" o. ct(Ji1 " "5"% Uvet. -
1/ /I ... fi&"FG' t;;F ='ht(qt _
_ 1f. .. I/./;IIU % . .1'.1- = &YPWP_
c
ItI
'\ 101 ...... ..' R.f.
" "2 . Jr$h;"i.hJ",;P tI .. I,-alni.seher. tnoi.'lure (yrtlol,,,,,<fn'<j .
f . '. hOM li,/rirrit>/eN/ detfA SJii S,,; 116 .. loJ :IOS'. '. .
'- .. : - ',J
. , .
. ' '2B _.+ . ___ " _ . __ .. ___ .. ____ : __ . .,-____ . ___ ...... _
,'J" . 2.6 -- - -.-...... _. ----". __ .- .--. ----,-----. .,",-.- -. ' ---' ___ ,:
.;..' 2'1 . -----"--- .. -- "-'--""-
- ... _, .. -_,,_ . ______ . -, -: ....
,.'.
. " i
r- .... _--
,'? 20---. --'-'.- - ... : ::':" ... ' '.
. ..t:: a: - -- -:;-T7"I-- --!. I. ,:- 'r,!
_?;: 18 __ , __ ___ . __ .:....._, , ____ . ____ ., __ __ o.-._/.t' ,lor .. "
... i! := .... ,i .
10. . .-,'--- __-----"--'7.-- ------. . ...... f .... r1 h :0S.: .... I
. ;:.,
'. '.
i
, ,
I----c'-
L __ ,-
_ .
..... '" ._ .... -- , ..
i,
r
... _.,-----1 .
. , '.
.. .'1
'
... " '1
I ' ..
. ! I '.:\:11
\
44 '46' W
. CLAY cOtlTENT . PER ..
FIG.!. lliot of 15-ntmosphorc porcoutLlgc versus clay 'contont as -dc'tormincd uy tho hydrometer
__ method for 730 Iowa Soilsj (circle) e:qlCrimcntal datal (BaUd linc) predietion,ourve. __ __ _
.. u.w.it!;iy_k.'/._
.. ...... ..... ...... .... ...... _..'_ .... _. ___ . _____ ... .
__ ... _. __ .... __ &g[n.lf-J/, .. doyo n-o.tJ!ff1- /I1t1.flw-;
J. u.lj,;i'i: (oJ b"/J,"",l,fc./d.le'l-Illfert:.,,fianl bchvdU/'
_._--_ .... - ._---_._--_.-_._--_. .... _--_.-,._--_ ... _.-._------_._----- . __ ._---_ .. _-----:----

S-ar putea să vă placă și