Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T22:34:29.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drainage and evaporation from fallow soil at Rothamsted

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. L. Penman  and
R. K. Schofield
H. L. Penman
Affiliation:
Soil Physics Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
R. K. Schofield
Affiliation:
Soil Physics Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Study of the automatic records shows:

(a) There is a seasonal change in the drainage response after rain which can be almost wholly ascribed to viscosity changes arising from seasonal changes of soil temperature (p. 77).

(b) Evaporation occurring after a fall of rain has no measurable effect on the drainage response to that rain (pp. 78, 87).

(c) The maximum drainage rates for the 20 in. gauge are much larger than those for the deeper gauges. The maxima change seasonally and are again primarily dependent on viscosity (p. 78).

(d) There is no marked change in the field capacity of the gauge during the year. The air-filled pore space at field capacity may change by about 15% of its average value (p. 81).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1941 , pp. 74 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Batham, H. N. (1925). Mem. Dep. Agric. India (Chem. Series), 8, 127.Google Scholar
Crowther, E. M. (1930). Proc. toy. Soc. B, 107, 1.Google Scholar
Gibbs, L. (1904). Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. 30, 39.Google Scholar
Gilbert, J. H. (1891). Proc. Inst. Civil Engrs, 105.Google Scholar
Greaves, C. (1876). Proc. Inst. Civil Engrs, 45.Google Scholar
Keen, B. A. & Russell, E. J. (1921). J. agric. Sci. 11, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koshal, R. S. (1934). J. agric. Sci. 24, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latham, B. (1909). Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. 35, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes, J. B. & Gilbert, J. H. (1871). J. R. agric. Soc. 7, 91.Google Scholar
Lawes, J. B., Gilbert, J. H. & Warington, R. (1881–2). J. R. agric. Soc. 17, 241, 311; 18, 1.Google Scholar
Leather, J. W. (1911). Mem. Dep. Agric. India (Chem. Series), 2, 63.Google Scholar
Miller, N. H. J. (1906). J. agric. Sci. 1, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, E. J. (1907). J. agric. Sci. 2, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, E. J. & Richards, E. H. (1920). J. agric. Sci. 10, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. H. (1900). Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. 26, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warington, R. (1900). Physical Propertits of Soil. Oxford.Google Scholar
Wishart, J. (1930). Mem. R. met. Soc. 27, 127.Google Scholar