4.7 Article

Saturated hydraulic conductivity of sulfuric horizons in coastal floodplain acid sulfate soils: Variability and implications

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 151, 期 3-4, 页码 387-394

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.05.010

关键词

Acid sulfate soil; Macropores; Hydraulic conductivity; Floodplain

资金

  1. NSW Department of Primary Industries and Tweed Shire Council
  2. Richmond Valley Council
  3. Clarence Valley Council
  4. Kempsey Shire Council
  5. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council
  6. Greater Taree City Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The saturated hydraulic conductivity (K-s) of sulfuric horizons exerts a fundamental control on the connectivity between shallow groundwater and drains in coastal acid sulfate soils (CASS), strongly influencing rates of lateral seepage towards or from field drains. The K-s of sulfuric horizons was assessed on seven major coastal floodplains of eastern Australia using an in situ recovery technique conducted in similar to 0.4-0.65 m deep pits. Duplicate recovery tests were conducted in a total of 148 pits located in 32 separate geomorphic units across the seven coastal floodplains. Most pits were constructed in clay soils with acidic (pH<4.0) shallow groundwater. The K-s spanned four orders of magnitude, ranging from <0.5 m day(-1) to >500 m day(-1). Data are log normally distributed and the median K-s was similar to 15.4 m day(-1). Over 40% of the pits had values >20 m day(-1), challenging the assumption that K-s in sulfuric horizons in CASS landscapes is generally low. Visual observations confirm that high K-s values were strongly associated with macropore flow. These data demonstrate that K-s in coastal floodplain sulfuric horizons can be very high and is extremely variable within individual floodplains. These findings highlight the need for site specific assessments of soil hydraulic properties in CASS in order to ensure appropriate design and application of acid management techniques. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据