Hydraulic properties of the Gerber soil
by James Buckley Sisson
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in Soils
Montana State University
© Copyright by James Buckley Sisson (1972)
Abstract:
During 1971 two plots, instrumented with neutron access tubing and tensiometers, were flooded,
covered and allowed to drain. Total water above a depth x was described by an empirical equation in
the form of W = axct-b, where W is total water in cm, a, b, c are parameters, t is time in days. The
physical significance of the parameter b is presented. The regression equations for estimating total
water above a depth are 1.012t-0.014 W = o.326x and 1.022-0.021 W = 0.319x t for plot 1 and plot 2,
respectively. STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the require­
ments for an advanced degree at Montana State University,
the Library shall make it freely available for inspection.
I agree that
I further
agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly
purpose may be granted by my major professor, or, in his. absence, by
the Director of Libraries.
It is understood that any copying or publi­
cation of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without
my written permission.
HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES OF THE GERBER SOIL
by
James Buckley Sisson
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Soils
Approved:
Head, Major Department
Dean, Graduate Division
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
August, 1972
-iiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his appreciation to the assistance and
encouragement received in every phase of his project from his wife,
Kathy.
Special appreciation is due to Dr. Hayden Ferguson for assis­
tance during the entire course of this project.
Special acknowledgement
is due to fellow students of Computer Science, Mr. Gordon Decker and
Mr. Donald Stanfield for their able assistance in developing suitable
FORTRAN IV programs.
The author is further indebted to Mr. Fred Booth
for the use and operation of tillage and earth moving equipment.
The project was supported by funds from the Agricultural Research
Service, USDA, the State of Montana and the Highwood Alkali Control
District.
■'
— iv—
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ii
V I T A ....... ................. ........ ...................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................
Iii
TABLE OF C O N T E N T S ....................... ....... ..... .................
iv
LIST OF T A B L E S ........ ........ ....................... .................
v
LIST OF F I G U R E S .................. ............. ....... ......... .......
vi
A B S T R A C T .....................
INTRODUCTION............ .'..................... ...... ............
MATERIALS AND M E T H O D S ................................
vii
'
I
8
RESULTS AND DIS C U S S I O N .................
10
SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N........
30
LITERATURE C I T E D ..................................................
32
APPENDIX I - Geology of the Highwood A r e a ..................... .
34
APPENDIX I I ... ................ .... .....;............ ................. '
39
APPENDIX I I I ....................... ..........'........ .................
43
-v•LIST OF TABLES
Number
Table I.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Page
Regression parameters for equations of the form
Ln(W) = Ln (a) + cLn(x) + b L n ( t ) ............................
11
Analysis of variance for the regression equation
in the form of W/xc = a f b ................................ .
12
Hydraulic properties at various depths during
d r a inage.... ........
17
Rate of drainage and total water drained on
various days for the 180 cm d e p t h ..........................
20
—viLIST OF FIGURES
Figure
page
1
Total water above x v s . time in days in plot I . . . .......
14
2
Total water above x vs. time in days for plot 2.. . . ........
15
3
Volumetric water content vs. depth at various times
during infiltration for plot I .......... ............... .
22
Volumetric water content vs. depth at various times
during infiltration for plot 2 .............................. .
23
Volumetric water content v s . depth .at various times
during drainage for plot 1 ....................................
26
Volumetric water content vs. depth at various times
during drainage for plot 2 .......... ............. ...... .
27
4
5
6
-viiABSTRACT
During 1971 two p l o t s , instrumented with neutron access tubing and
tensiometers, were flooded, covered and allowed to drain.
Total water
above a depth x was described by an empirical equation in the form of
W = axct ~ k , where W is total water in cm, a, b, c are parameters, t is
time in days.
The physical significance of the parameter b is presented
The regression equations for estimating total water above a depth are
W
o .326x
1.012-0.014
and
W = 0.319x
1 . 0 2 2 - 0.021
for plot I and plot 2, respectively.
INTRODUCTION
Alarm of saline seeps encroaching onto valuable crop land in
Montana was first sounded by Warden
(1954) in a popular article titled
"Why that North Slope A l k a l i ?", in-which he presented observations on
the nature and occurrence of saline seeps on the Highwood Bench in
Chouteau County.
Warden reported that the depth to shale under the seeped areas was
usually only 12-15 feet
(4-5 m) and.that test holes filled with w a t e r .
Problem spots generally occurred on 3-5% slopes with lengths of
100-200 rods
(500-1000 m) on areas which had been under cultivation for
30-40 years.
He used 1937, 1941 and 1951 aerial photos and interviews
w i t h agriculture operators in the area to point out that saline seeps
were increasing in size and number.
Warden stated that the problem was
becoming evident at other locations in Central Montana and in the Province
of Saskatchewan and speculated the problem was caused by precipitation
exceeding evapotranspiration under a summerfallow-crop rotation system.
Warden's observations have been substantiated by research conducted
on the area since the fall of 1969.
That research established that
the soils on the Highwood Bench are of glacial origin and are underlain
by several hundred feet of Colorado Shale
(Appendix I ) .
Also, the region
is isolated from possible ground water sources by the Big Sag on the
s o u t h , Highwood Creek on the w e s t , the Shonkin Creek channel on the
east and the present Missouri River channel on the north.
'Thus,
excessive ground water originates on the Highwood Bench itself and
Warden's original hypothesis that precipitation in excess of evapotranspiration causes the overabundance of shallow ground water in the
area is substantiated.
This condition leads to the formation of alkali
se e p s .
A saline seep can be divided into three essential parts.
Obvious
is the discharge area, where the actual seep exists.
This region is
characterized by 'a salt crust and lack of vegetation.
A second part
is the subsurface aquifer or that portion of till resting on shale which
conducts water into the seep.
The third part is the recharge area, where
water enters the aquifer, that usually consists of clean summerfallow
or a good stand of small grain.
A simple definition of a recharge area is an area where precipita­
tion percolates through the rooting zone, enters the aquifer and
eventually appears at the seep.
With this definition the amount of
water that enters the aquifer is simply that quantity of water which
moves beyond the rooting depth of the vegetation established on the
recharge area.
The motion of water in soils is generally described mathematically
as:
30
-^T = V-KVH
(I)
3
3
where 0 is the volumetric water content, (cm /cm ) , t is time, K is.
the hydraulic conductivity and H is the total fluid potential.
-3Although this expression is valid and general, solutions are avail­
able for only a few simple boundary conditions.
The problem of finding
solutions is greatly confounded by the fact that K, 0, and H are all
interrelated in a complicated fashion that is not fully understood.
Much of the theoretical work during the past 20 years in soil
physics has centered around solving
and initial conditions.
(I) subject to different boundary
These works have been invaluable in leading
to a greater understanding of soil-water relationships.
The methods
that have evolved from these studies work satisfactorily for simple
initial and boundary conditions.
But vast amounts of laboratory data
.-and adequate empirical relations between K, 0, and H are needed to
facilitate solutions.
of this technique.
These requirements greatly limit the applicability
In order to describe soil-water behavior in exten­
sive recharge a r e a s , a less intensive model must be employed to study
soil-water dynamics.
Of the less intensive methodologies currently available, no single
model describes the motion of soil water from early stages of infiltra­
tion through late stages of drainage.
These processes are studied
independently with the intermediate stage usually ignored.
The most extensively used relationship to relate infiltration with
time is that of Phillip
k
Q = St^ + At;
(1954)
(2 )
-4Q is the total amount infiltrated, S and A are constants and t is
time in seconds.
values of t.
Phillip stated that his equation failed at large
Miller and Gardner
(1962), working with uniform and
stratified soil colu m n s , demonstrated that equations of the form
Q = Atb
(3)
or
Q =
atb + ct
failed to describe the entire infiltration process and
for a time period of a few seconds up to 3 hours.
(4)
were inadeqaute
Miller and Gardner
also encountered discontinuities in the infiltration rate as the
wetting front reached sand lenses.
previously by Colman and Bodman
(2) and
These phenomena were encountered
(1944).
But equations of the form of
(3) are finding continued use since their form is easy to handle
and they are reasonable approximations.
An empirical expression relating drainage and surface evaporation
with time was proposed by Richards, Gardner and Ogata
W = WLt~b
(1956) in the form
(5)
where W is the total quantity of water above the depth L , i.e.,
(L
W=I
and
0dx, t is the time in days following the irrigation
is the total quantity of water above depth L on day I.
The
exponent b is a constant, and under conditions of evaporation, will be
different for each depth.
Ogata and Richards
(1957) further verified this equation form on
a sandy loam soil covered with a sheet of polyethylene and straw.
Soil
water was monitored gravimetricalIy at periodic intervals for 50 days.
The relation between soil w a t e r , depth and time was
W =
(0.52 + 0.209x + 0 . 0 0 0 5 3 X 2 ) t_° o128
(6)
The authors noted that the simplified equation
W = 0.256 xt 8 "^28 described the data almost as well.
These results were consistent with laboratory data and previous
experiments conducted on the site.
Wilcox
(1959), in attempting to determine the rate of drainage
following irrigations, examined the Richards equation in detail.
the data of B l a n e y , Taylor and Young
Using
(1933)., he concluded that the
equation was valid on a sandy loam for the duration of that test
(435 d a y s ) .
Wilcox conducted a series of experiments on a wide range
of soil types.
The research was carried out under the following
conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
•6.
Field trials only
Uniform soil texture to the depth studied
Free drainage into the subsoil
No water table within 100 feet of the soil surface
Subsoil moisture was present
Trials followed heavy irrigations
The results of these tests, for the upper 6 feet, were "W^"
values ranging from 6.30 to 40.16 inches and "b" values ranging from
.1404 to .0288 for sandy loams and clay loams, respectively. J
The experiments ran from 15 to 64 days and to depths of 6 or 7
feet.
Wilcox reported that the data points did not lie close to the
predicted values until I day after irrigation for a sandy loam and that
—6—
2 to 3 days were required for the data of a heavy loam to approach the
predicted curve.
In general, the equation overpredicted drainage during
the early part of the experiments, except in the upper 1-2 feet where
drainage was underestimated.
exceptions,
The author concluded that
(5) with the above
accurately predicted deep percolation.
Davidson et al.
(1969) reported a similar equation to describe
drainage from both uniform and non-uniform profiles.
Assuming a rela­
tionship between 0 and K, they derived the equation
qL = K lZ U
+ aK^t/L)
to predict percolation from covered plots,
(7)
q^ is soil-water flux at
depth L, K l is the average saturated hydraulic conductivity to depth L ,
a is a constant and t is time.
Richards et al.
aw
at
(1956) predicted flux at depth L with
(8 )
= -b (Wl ) t 13
L
where W l is the initial water above depth L .
Equation
(7) and
(8) are
similar in that the rate of drainage is inversely proportional to t i m e .
Gardner
unity
(ie.
where K
(1970) proposed that if the hydraulic gradient approximated
=-l)
then.
is the hydraulic conductivity at depth L.
— 7—
But equation
(9) is merely a special form of equation
(8) in that
/l
aw
at
36
^rdx.
aw
at
Combining equations
(9), the result is
-b-l
-b(WT ) t °
= K
Li
L
If on day I a unit gradient exists,
-bW
(8) and
(10 )
(10) becomes
= -K
which implies that b = K^/w^.
(ID
Thus, the physical significance of b
is established as the ratio of the hydraulic conductivity at depth L
to the total water held above that depth.
The most important variable in the study of saline seep problems
requires an estimate of the quantity of water moving through the soil
profile in the recharge areas.
The purpose of this investigation was
to establish the applicability of a model for predicting flux and total
water lost by drainage from the rooting zone of Gerber silty clay loam.
The model employed was first proposed by Richards et al.
(1956) and
requires only the flux at a depth and total soil water above that depth
be known at the time of arrival of the wetting front.
—8—
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In 1970 a site was chosen on a Gerber silty Clay loam
(Appendix I I ) ,
where the water table was known to.be at a depth greater than 13.8 m
(46 ft.).
Plots were established and steel neutron access tubing
(OD = 4.4 cm) were installed to allow an overwinter stabilization p e r i o d .
Of the original plots, two were selected for study in 1971.
Since equation
(10) required both soil water potentials and volumetric
water c o n tents, these variables were monitored simultaneously throughout
the experiment.
Although a knowledge of soil water potentials are
not required for the model under test, these data were collected in order
to obtain a better understanding of the soil water system.
Soil water potential was determined with tensiometers installed
at various depths. The tensiometers consisted of rigid plastic tubing
bonded to porous cups.
Small diameter nylon tubing joined the tensio­
meter to a liquid mercury reservoir forming the necessary manometer.
The
height of mercury standing in the manometer was multiplied by 13.546 to
give total soil water potential in cm of water.
On b oth plots the volumetric water content was determined at 15 cm
depth increments by a neutron meter equipped with an 80-mc Am-Be high
energy neutron source
(sheid counting rate = 5.4 x IO^ cpm) .
Volumetric
water content was interpolated from the factory calibration cur v e .
Water for flooding the plots was obtained at the Highwood Municipal
Water Works and trucked to the site.
A ponding depth of 10 cm was
achieved within 10 minutes on both plots, after which inflow rate was
-9monitored occasionally with a 355 cm3 (12 oz.) aluminum can and by
interrupting the inflow and observing the rate of fall of the water
surface.
The inflow was constant throughout the flooding period on both
«5
plots at approximately I cm per hour.
The major differences between plot I and plot 2 were:
I) Plot
I was 3 x 3 m in area where plot 2 was 6 x 6 m, 2) Plot I was covered with
polyethylene whereas plot 2 was covered with a heavy straw mulch.
3) Tensiometers were installed at the 15, 30, 6 0 , ....... 240 cm depths
on plot I, whereas 15 cm depth increments were employed to a depth of
270 cm on plot 2.
4) water was ponded at 10 cm for 4 hours on plot I
a n d plot 2 received the full ponding depth for approximately 24 h o u r s .
On both plots the water level receded within approximately 10 hfs.
All data were processed on an XDS 7 computer at Montana State
University.
Regression analysis was carried out on Multiple Regression
Program by R. E. L u n d .
Plotting was executed on an IBM 1627 plotter.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In order to fit regressions to
(5) the equation was written in
the logarithmic form of
W = axCt^
(12)
(i.e-, LnW = Lna + cLnx + b L n t , where Ln denotes the natural logarithm).
Linear regressions were developed and the results are presented in
Table I.
The regression coefficients are b and c, the intercept is the L n a .
The r
2
values imply that over 99.9% of the experimental variation is
accounted for by the regression equations.
The partial correlation coefficients are a crude measure of
association between the independent variable and the dependent variable.
The correlation coefficients
than for L n t .
(Table I) for Lnx are considerably higher
This would be expected since W varied by a factor of 20
in depth but only 0.05 in time.
In order to more closely estimate the effect of time,
(12) was
written as W/xC = at ^+d, where a and d arise from regression and the
exponents were taken from Table I.
This form-of the equation helps to
estimate the effect of time by incorporating the effects of xC into a new
dependent variable W/xC .
not too obvious fashion,
Another objective is also accomplished, in a
in that
(12) is being tested for asymptotes,
as time becomes arbitrarily large, will there still be water in the
profile?
The results are presented in Table 2.
i.e.
-11Table I.
Regression parameters for equations of the form Ln(W) = L n (a) +
cLn(x) + bLn(t).
Where W is total water above x at time t.
Plot No. I
Source
of
Variation
Mean
Ln of t
in days
3.502
-0.5626
Ln of x
in cm
4.679
0.9995
Ln of total
water above x
3.565
r 2 = 0.9990
Partial
Correlations
intercept = -1.0120
Regression
Coefficients
Std. Error
of
Coefficient
Computed
t
-0.01405
±0.001301
-10.80
1.012
±0.002048
494.1
Std. error S y x = 0.02525
Plot No. 2
Source
of
Variation
Mean
Ln of t
in days
2.103
-0.7742
Ln of x
in cm
4.730
.9997
Ln of total
water (cm)
above x
3.648
r 2 = 0.9994
Partial
Correlations
intercept = -1.144
Regression
Coefficients
Std. Error
of
Coefficient
Computed
t
-0.02078
0.001118
-18.59
1.022
0.001549
660.0
Std. error S y -x = 0.005601
-12Table 2.
Analysis of variance for the regression equation in the form
of W/x = at
. The exponents are coefficients from Table I
and W is total water above x at time t.
Plot No. I
Source of
Variation
Due to
Regression
d.f.
I
Residual
254
Total
255
r 2 = 0.9994
Intercept = C).0000
Regression coefficient a = 0.3260
F
M.S.
24.5825
408386
6.01941 x io"5
S td. error S y -x =
0.007758
Plot No. 2
Source of
Variation
Due to
Regression
d.f.
I
Residual
233
Total
234
r 2 = 0.9997
Intercept = 0.0000
Regression Coefficient a = 0.3190
M.S.
21.8393
F
696207
3.13689 x io"5
S t d . error S y -x = 0.005601
-13Note in Table 2 that the new variable W/xC is strongly dependent on
time.
And, since d = 0.0, all the water in a soil profile, covered and
free to drain, is in theory subject to loss by drainage.
These results
imply that a recharge area is continually adding water to the underlying
aquifer.
From Tables I and 2 the final equations for estimating cm of water
above a depth- x are
0.326x
1.012
-0.014
1.022
-
(13)
and
0.319x
0.021
(14)
for plot I and plot 2 respectively, where water in the profile on day I is
given by axC .
The differences between
(13) and
(14) have been attri­
buted to natural variation between the sites and to differences in the
quantity of water a d d e d .
These curves together with scatter diagrams of the data, are
presented in Figures I and 2, respectively.
The curve for plot I has been
extrapolated backwards in time to approximately I day after infiltration
had ceased,
in order to show that the equation also predicted part of the
redistribution phase.
Extrapolation was not done for plot 2.
Drainage fluxes from the profiles are obtained by differentiating
(13) and
(14) with respect to time.
The resulting flux equations are
100.<L
90.Q
80.0 .
70.0
i-fz---- ^------5- *
60.0.
♦ ♦ ♦ *.♦ + + +
Total water W in cm above
SQ-Qi
»+++++ +
10. Ql
+++++++-»+ ** +++ * * ♦
+++*++* + ++ +++ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦I♦♦♦■
f ♦ ♦♦
+ + + *+ +» + + + + +
♦♦♦ •
+-»-
+ + +
+ ++++++++++++ +I ♦♦♦■
♦ ♦ <**•+**+ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦
to. cl
♦ T T
--
♦ ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦
* ♦♦♦ * ♦ ♦
O
Time
Figure I.
O
Cl O .1 O
(t. + 0.1)
?
?
? ?????
in days
Total water above x vs. time in days in plot I. Time is actually
t + 0.1 to allow plotting of data from initiation of flooding
through the drainage phase.
The parameter is depth in cm.
The
vertical arrow denotes "day I" of the drainage phase and the dashed
lines are extrapolations of the solid regression li n e s .
..
100 0
to.Q
00.0
70.Q
Total water W in cms above
X
|
4 4 4 4 4 4
44
♦ ♦
!!!!!!!«
♦ *
*
«
*
♦♦
4 4
4
4 4 4 4
44
+
4 4
4
4 4 4 4 4 4 44
♦ ♦
♦ ♦
60.0
W-Q
40.0
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦ ♦
♦ ♦-
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
30.0
♦
20.Ql
♦
♦
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 4 4 4 4 44
4 4 4 4 4 44
4 4 4 4 44 44
4 4
4
44444*44
4
♦ ♦
4
♦
4
1
4 4 4 4 4.4
4 4 4 4 44^4
4
4
4
4
4
4
HzH-!^t
t-!
- “-- tEt*'- *
*
4
.♦
4
e.o
1.0«.o;
4
1 »5
41
♦▲ ,
*
.,
Z_!_I___
4
4
4 4 4 4 4 4 44
4 4 4 4 4 44 44
.
1 .0 .
4
4
1
♦
10 . 0
=5
TSM
”"'I
f
W
i
\
S
i
t
- a
"»
iff
-»
1
44
4
1
4*5
t
♦
I
H
4
4
4
4 4 4 4 4 4 f4
5.0
Ul
4
I
4.0
»
f
O
•< • V. • • b
Time
Figure 2.
*
::E
t% O O O O O
it
E E E EEEEEl
(t + 0.1) in days
Total water above x vs. time in days for plot 2. Time is actually
t + 0.1 to allow plotting of data from initiation of flooding
through the drainage phase.
The parameter is depth in cms.
The
vertical arrow denotes "day I" of the drainage phase and the solid
lines are regression lines.
I
— 16—
1.012
q = 0.00456x
-1.014
t
(15)
and
1.022
q = 0.00670%
-
1.021
t
(16)
for plot I and plot 2, respectively.
Utilizing hydraulic gradients estimated from tensiometer data
together with the flu% equations
(15) and
(16), the hydraulic conductivities
were computed by
(17)
A%
L
is the hydraulic conductivity at depth L; q and —
total hydraulic gradient respectively at depth L.
are the flu% and
The gradient is actually
an average gradient over the interval A%; t h u s , L is interpreted to be
the midpoint of the interval.
Since the soil water potential data were erratic, perhaps because of
wide fluctuations in ambient temperature and a continual problem with air
bubbles developing in the tensiometers, no attempt was made to correlate
these data with time or depth.
Instead, the data were smoothed with a
3-point moving average in time and the gradients were computed between
depths that reacted parallel in time.
Flu%es, volumetric water contents, hydraulic conductivities and
matri% potential
(matri% potential
(h) = total potential
several depths, are presented in Table 3.
(H) - depth)
for
These data show that soil water
flu% and the hydraulic conductivity decrease rapidly with time, whereas 0
-17
Table 3.
Hydraulic properties at various depths during drainage.
Fluxes were obtained with equation 15.
PLOT I
avgd.
Dats into
Drainage
1.00
5.00
14.00
18.00
25.00
34.00
40.00
48.00
53.00
69.87
72.10
74.17
86.02
95.00
Avgd.
Days into
Drainage
1.00
5.00
14.00
18.00
25.00
34.00
40.00
48.00
53.00
69.87
72.10
74.17
86.02
95.00
60 cm depth
Gradient from 30-90
1.66 during the drainage phase
K=/
0.29
0.047
0.018
0.015
0.011
0.0078
0.0068
0.0067
0.0056
0.0051
0.0038
0.0037
0.0035
0.0031
.17
.028
.011
.0090
.0066
.0047
.0041
.0040
.0034
.0031
.0023
.0022
.0021
.0019
ei/
34.2
34.5
34.8
34.1
35.0
32.6
33.2
32.6
32.9
32.2
32.8
32.9
32.3
33.3
h ^
20
35
44
74
90
100
104
104
108
116
HO
HO
90
72
105 cm depth
Gradient from 90-120
0.632 during the drainage phase
q
0.51
0.083
0.033
0.026
0.019
0.014
0.012
0.0098
0.0089
0.0068
0.0065
0.062
0.0055
0.0050
K
.81
.13
.052
.041
.030
.022
.019
.016
.014
.011
.010
.0098
.0097
.0079
6
35.6
34.9
35.5
36.4
34.9
34.8
34.9
34.5
34.8
34.3
35.1
34.5
34.5
34.8
75 cm depth
Gradient from 30-120
avgd. 1.046 during drainage
h
34
40
42
64
80
98
109
126
118
121
100
101
90
84
K
0
h
.34
.056
.022
.017
.012
.0094
.0080
.0067
.0060
.0046
.0045
.0042
.0037
.0033
35.5
35.1
34.9
34.8
34.3
34.5
34.4
34.5
34.8
34.2
35.0
35.2
34.5
34.8
20
30
36
61
78
89
95
104
97
82
65
74
74
66
q
0.36
0.059
0.023
0.018
0.013
0.0098
0.0084
0.0070
0.0063
0.0048
0.0047
0.0044
0.0039
0.0035
180 cm depth
Gradient from 120-240
Avgd. 1.66 during drainage
q
.87
.14
.056
.044
.032
.024
.020
.017
.015
.012
.011
.011
.0094
.0086
K
1.25
.20
.080
.063
.045
.034
.028
.024
.021
.017
.016
.016
.013
.012
6
32.1
32.1
32.1
30.6
32.0
31.8
31.5
31.8
31.4
32.2
31.4
31.4
31.1
31.4
h
6.9
13.3
19.0
36.0
53.0
68.0
79.0
90.5
83.5
72.0
55.0
55.5
57.5
62.0
— 18Table 3«, (Cont.)
I/
q is flux in cm/day
2/
K is hydraulic conductivity in cm/day
3/
9 is volumetric water content expressed as percent
4/
h is matrix potential expressed in cm of w a t e r .
—19—
and, to a lesser degree, matrix potential
constant in time.
(h) appears to remain nearly
These results are consistent with the fact that the
hydraulic conductivity is characteristically a violent function of 0,
changing 2 to 3 orders of magnitude with small changes in 6.
Thus, even
small errors in estimating 0 obscure any relationship that may exist
between K and 0.
The data for plot 2 are similar to plot I and are not
presented in this p a p e r .
Assuming a 180 cm rooting depth,
(15) and
(16) become
q = 0o87t- 1 '014
(18)
q = 1.35t~1-021
(19)
and
(14) become
W = 62.45t~"°14
(20)
W = 64.37t"-021
(21)
and noting that total water lost to drainage is
- W, Table 4 was
constructed.
Table 4 shows that flux and total drainage from plot 2 are greater
than from plot I.
As.emphasized in the introduction, the "b" parameter
is directly proportional to flux and was 50% greater for plot 2 than
for plot I.
Differences in drainage characteristics are to be expected
since natural variation in hydraulic properties is known to occur over
any area.
The data in Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate that when the soils in these
-20plots reach a water content higher than about 33%, drainage will take
place at a rate exceeding that of crop water use for the first few d a y s .
Summerfallow operations are directed specifically at producing a
profile with the maximum water content possible, by reducing evaporation
from the soil surface and plant water extraction to a minimum.
This
practice usually produces a wet profile and thus, loses the maximum
water to drainage.
Assuming a recharge area to discharge area ratio of 10 to I and that
the data in Table 4 represent the recharge area, 39 to 59 cm of water per
unit area of discharge would be available over a 100-day period.
These
estimates explain in part why seeps in the area are growing at a rapid
rate.
Table 4.
Rate of drainage and total water drained on various days for
the 180 cm depth.
Rate of drainage (cm/day)
Plot I
Plot 2
Days into
Drainage
.87
.14
.083
.041
.027
.020
.016
.0081
I
5
10
20
30
40
50
100
Results from the tensiometers
those of Davidson,
Thurtell
/
1.33
.26
.13
.062
.041
.031
.025
.012
Total water lost(cm)
Plot I
Plot 2
————
—.———
1.39
1.95
2.55
2.90
3.14
3.33
3.90
2.12
3.01
3.89
4.37
4.75
5.03
5.87
(see Appendix III) are similar to
Stone, Nielsen and LaRue
(1969) and Black, Gardner and
(1969) in that the hydraulic gradients remain nearly constant for
-21extended periods of time during drainage.
However, negative matrix
potentials were encountered at considerable depths in the profiles.
Most notably these anomalies occurred at 60, 150 and 210 cm depths
on both plots.
tinuous pores
One explanation of these phenomena is that large con­
(e.g., root channels, vertical joints, etc.) hydraulic­
ally connected the soil surface to the depth horizons.
The physical
implications are that water can enter subsurface horizons with large
pores such as sand and gravel, while most of the profile is in an
unsaturated condition.
Tensiometers provide an estimate of total water potential gradients
and also marked the time of the wetting front arrival at a given depth.
This event is actually day I for equation
(5) and is signified by an
abrupt decrease in soil water potential at that depth.
(See Appendix III).
An estimate of the wetting front position with time may also be
obtained from soil water content-depth data during infiltration.
3 and 4 show typical data from plots I and 2, respectively.
Although
these figures describe 6 as being determined at points in space,
actually an average water content over a depth interval.
of the interval is not known.
Figures
6 is
The exact size
The factory manual for the neutron probe
states that the zone of measurement will vary with water content between
10 cm
(4 in) and 30 cm
estimated as Z 6_.Axj.
(11.6 in) in height.
to the depth under consideration.
Figures 3 and 4 describe an
over the interval A x j .
J'
For this reason the I Gdx was
Therefore,
average volumetric content of soil water ov
Figures 3 and 4 show a diffuse wetting frong and
a relatively small increase in water content in the transmitting zone
Figure 3.
Volumetric water content vs. depth at various
times during infiltration for plot I. Para­
meter is time in days. The curves designated
by the crosses (X) arc time 0.0; those desig­
nated by pluses (+) are for times shown.
-23KRCtNT WflTiR ST VOLUMt
H
30
31
«
KRCtNT NflTtR ST VGLlRIt
4$
R
IC
31
<0
r 165 .
«5 .
I
I I i ■ '
i
Ttes
RtRCtVT IiflTtR ST VOLlRt
?n _
ro.
4
j
Z*5 1 -1 .‘.-L ' - L J - l - L . L
Figure 4.
I 2_3__:____ L - L - L - U L - J
ZTO .
?4S
I■
i4
'
I I '
I I I ....................................................
Volumetric water content vs. depth at various
times during infiltration for plot 2. Para­
meter is time in days. The curves designated
by the crosses (X) are time 0.0; those desig­
nated by pluses (+) are for times shown.
45
— 24—
above the wetting front.
to an already wet soil
1952).
This is to be expected when water is added
(Hillel and G ardner, 1970 and Miller and Richards,
By comparison, when infiltration takes place into initially dry
media, the transmitting zone is characterized by large increases in water
content and the wetting front remains abru p t .
Also, the wetting front
moves at a slower rate through an initially dry media.
Figures 3, 4 and data presented in Appendix III provide an estimate
of the movement of the wetting front with time.
since
This is important
(5) requires a knowledge of when the wetting front arrives at
the depth where drainage is being considered.
Until the wetting front
arrives at this depth, drainage at that depth will occur as if no water
had been added to the soil profile.
Considerably more water was added to each plot than could.be
accounted for by the increase
neutron p r o b e .
It
in soil water content measured with the
is possible that ponding the water on the plots
resulted in water being conducted completely through the profile by
large vertical pores.
Certainly Figures 3 and 4 indicate a rapid move­
ment of water into the two plots, at least to the 180 cm d e p t h .
H owever,
it is more likely that lateral seepage from the plots during the ponding
period accounted for most of the water loss.
The objective of this study
was to establish the validity of a simple model that can be used to
predict drainage losses, from a covered p r o f i l e .
The model, once
established can be extended to a wider variety of initial and boundary
-25conditions and ultimately provide estimates of the quantity of water
entering an aquifer.
Water was added to obtain the initial conditions
required by the m o d e l , not as a part of a water budget study.
Figures 5 and 6 show examples of the drainage pattern from plots
I and 2, respectively.
These figures
considerable degree of heterogeneity
(and Figures 3 and 4) indicate a
within both profiles.
age pattern was much more consistent in plot 2 than plot I.
The drain­
However,
the scatter diagrams for soil water above a specified depth as a
function of time
(Figures I and 2) and the r
significant drainage from both profiles.
2
values
(Table I) indicate
Equation 5 and 12 describe
soil water behavior in these moderately heterogenious profiles satis­
factorily.
For cases of extreme
heterogeneity a more elaborate
function of W ^ may be needed, or a separate "b" term may be utilized
for each d e p t h .
equations
The 15 cm depth lost more water than average, but
(13) and
(14) predicted this as can be seen from Figures I and
2.
In order to predict flux from profiles.on which vegetation is
transpiring soil w a t e r , Wilcox
(1959) combined
(5) with its
derivative in time as follows:
W = W l t 13
taking logarithms of both equations and eliminating time
(5)
(t) to
— 26—
ftRCZMT WTFR RT tOLUri
MRTFNT W T tR PT VOLUME
33
35
PERCENT W TER ST VOLUME
30
35
MRCFMT W T fR RT R O U M
30
35
t$
30
45
CO
75
$0
I=
$ "
8 iso
tr
210
225
2*0
255
273
Figure 5.
Volumetric water content vs. depth at various
times during drainage for plot I. Parameter
is times in days.
The crosses (X) designate
"day I"; pluses (+) are for time shown.
27
Figure 6.
Volumetric water content vs. depth at various
times during drainage for plot 2. Parameter
is time in days. The crosses (X) designate
"day I"; pluses (+) are for time shown.
-28give
b+1
3W
(22)
at
In terms of the development carried out in the introduction,
(22)
can be written as
(23)
Wilcox utilized
(22) to estimate drainage from cropped profiles
by proceeding as follows:
1)
assume the rate of drainage is independent of crop water use.
2)
sample the soil at periodic intervals and determine W.
3)
use graphical interpolation to establish the average rate of
drainage between the dates
4)
(i.e. the average W ) .
use the average rate of drainage times the number of days
between the sampling dates as being the total water lost by
drainage.
Although Wilcox was never able to establish the accuracy of this p ro­
cedure, he stated the method yielded reasonable estimates of deep
percolation losses from beneath growing crops.
More recently Miller and Aastard
(1972) verified
(.22) for predicting
drainage losses from laboratory columns on which alfalfa
sativa, V a r . Vernal) was established.
(Medicago
The results obtained were in
agreement with the predictive equation, provided adequate time was
-29allowed for drainage to start.
A condition prevalent on recharge areas where the validity of
is yet to be established is the presence of a water table.
modification to allow extension of
(5)
A possible
(5) would be to introduce a function
of x to account for the presence of the water table.
Further study of saline seeps should be directed at applying this
model to estimate deep percolation into aquifers of large areas.
When
reliable estimates become available of soil water drainage and aquifer
gains, sound judgement can be made on what changes are necessary to
control the saline seep problem.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The most important variable in the study of saline seeps is
drainage loss from soil profiles.
The model
W = axCt k,
proposed by Richards et al.
(1956), for describing soil water behavior
was varified in the field for a Gerber silty clay loam.
Examination
of the model indicated that the parameter "b" had the physical sig­
nificance of being the ratio of drainage flux at depth L to the total
water held above that depth at the moment of the arrival of the wetting
front.
The model's parameters were estimated by least squares regression.
The resulting equations for predicting total water above a depth x at
time t are
W - 0.326*1-012 t"0 -014
and
M -, 0 . 3 3 V - 022 t " 0 -021
for two adjacent covered p l o t s .
0.999 were obtained,
In both cases r
values in excess of
indicating that the model accurately described soil
water data for the Gerber soil.
Differentiation of these equations with respect to time t yields
the flux equations
q _ 0.00456xl'°12t-l'°14
and
q = 0.00670xl'°22t-l'°21
for the two plots respectively.
These equations describe the rate of
soil water loss at depth x and time t .
The model predicts drainage losses of 3.9 and 5.9 cm of water
from profiles wet to a depth of 180 cm over a 100 day time period.
Assuming a recharge to discharge area ratio of 10 to I, 39 to 59 cm
of water per unit area of discharge would be supplied to the seep.
Further assuming a porosity of 50% for the soils in the discharge area
the water table could rise to 78 to 118 cm.
It is concluded that the model does predict soil water behavior
at the study site and should be applicable to large recharge areas.
Also the model may be applicable to more hetrogenous profiles.
LITERATURE CITED
1.
Black, T . A., W. R= Gardner and G= W. Thurtell. 1969.
The
prediction of evaporation, drainage, and soil water storage for a
bare soil.
Soil S c i . S o c . A m e r . P r o c . 33:
655-660.
2.
B l a n e y , H. F., C. A. Taylor and A. A. Yo u n g . 1933.
Rainfall
penetration and consumptive use of water in the Santa Ana River
Valley and Coastal Plain.
Calif. Dept. Pub. Works Bull. 33.
3.
C o l m a n , E. A. and G. B. Bodm a n . 1944. Moisture and energy conditions
during downward entry of water into moist and layered soils.
Soil
S c i . S o c . A m e r . P r o c . 9:
3-11.
4.
Davidson, J. M., L. R. Stone, D. R. Nielsen and M. E. L a R u e . 1969.
Field measurements and use of soil-water properties.
Water Resources
Res.
5:
1312-1321.
5.
Gardner, W. R.
1970.
Field measurement of soil water diffusivity.
Notes.
Soil Sci- S o c . A m e r . P r o c . 34:
832-833.
6.
Hillel, D. and W. R. Gardner.
1970.
Transient infiltration into
crust-topped profiles.
Soil S c i . 109:
69-76.
7.
Miller, D. E. and J. Sv Aa r s t a d . 1972. Available water as related
to evapotranspiration rates and deep drainage.
Soil Sci.. So c .
A m e r . P r o c . 35:
131-134.
8.
Miller, D. E. and W. Gardner.
1962.
Water infiltration into
stratified soil.
Soil Sci. S o c . A m e r . P r o c . 26:
115-119.
9.
Miller, R. D . and F. Richard.
1952.
Hydraulic gradients during
infiltration in soils.
Soil S c i . S o c . A m e r . P r o c . 16:
33-38.
10.
Ogata, Gen and L. A. Richards.
1957.
Water content changes follow­
ing irrigation of bare-field soil that is protected from evaporation.
Soil Sci. S o c . A m e r . P r o c . 21:
355-356.
11.
Philip, J. R.
significance.
12.
Richards, L. A., W. R. Gardner and Gen Ogata.
1956.
Physical
processes determining water loss from the soil.
Soil Sci. S o c .
A m e r . P r o c . 20:
310-314.
1954. A n infiltration equation with physical
Soil Sci. 77:
153-177.
-3313.
Warden, R. W.
1954.
Why that North Slope Alklai?
Farmer-Stockman.
Sept. I pp I and 17.
14.
:
Wilcox,
J. C . 1959.
Rate of soil drainage following an irrigation
Can. J. Soil S c i . 40:
15-27.
Montana
APPENDIX I
-35GEOLOGY OF THE HIGHWOOD AREA—
The geological history of the Highwood Bench area, as well as
the rest of northern Montana, includes long periods of sedimentation,
emplacement of volcanic and plutonic igneous rocks, regional uplift,
erosion, and glaciation.
Throughout most of the Paleozoic
million years ago) and Mesozoic
(225 to 600
(70 to 225 million years ago) time,
thousands of feet of predominantly marine sediments were deposited in
this region.
At the end of the Mesozoic Era
(Late Cretaceous time)
and extending into Early Tertiary time (50 to 70 million years a g o ) ,
the entire area was uplifted, faulted, a n d folded, producing the Rocky
Mountains to the west and south, tilting the sedimentary rocks under
lying Chouteau County gently to the northeast
subjecting the area to erosion.
(1/2 to 3 degrees), and
The emplacement of volcanic and plu­
tonic rocks forming the Highwood and Bearpaw Mountains also occurred
during this time.
Continued erosion during the Tertiary Period
stripped away the uppermost Cretaceous sediments, exposing the black
shale of the Colorado Group in the Highwood Bench area.
This same
area was dissected and drained by the ancestral Missouri Ri v e r , which
flowed in a northeasterly direction to Hudson Bay.
During the Pleistocene Epoch
(20,000 to I million years ago),
the entire region north of the Highwood Mountains were covered two or
more times by glacial ice, leaving a mantle of unconsolidated, poorly
sorted deposits called glacial till or drift, which filled most of
-36have been observed lying beneath, within, and on top of the glacial
till.
No salt accumulation has been observed in areas where the
gravel lies at the till-shale contact, but large saline areas are no­
ticeable adjacent to the gravel beds that are within or on top of the
till.
These gravel zones probably act as recharge areas capable of
transmitting large quantities of water to nearby low areas.
In ex­
posures of till along the Missouri Riv e r , extensive vertical joints
have been noticed, which could greatly enhance the vertical movement
of water.
These joints are filled with salt crystals.
X-ray analysis of the clay minerals in the glacial till indi­
cates 80 percent montmorillonite
(highly plastic sodium-rich expanding
c l a y ) , 15 percent illite, and 5 percent kaolinite or chlorite.
The
high montmorillonite content may severely hinder the chances of
effectively draining the saline areas.
Beneath the glacial till and underlying the entire Highwood
Bench is 950 to 1,850 feet of black bentonitic marine shale of the'
Colorado Group.
Owing to erosion and the gentle dip to the north­
east, the shale thins to a southwest toward the Little Belt Mountains'
and thickens to the northeast.
Lithologic information obtained from
more than 120 test holes indicates that a weathered zone at the tillshale contact is I to 2 feet thick.
This zone is commonly saturated
with water and is somewhat more premeable
than the overlying glacial till.
(able to transmit water)
The underlying unweathered shale
-37the pre-existing valleys and coulees, leaving a relatively flat gla­
cial plain.
The ice blocked the drainage of the Missouri River and
its tributaries, forcing the streams to change course numerous times
and in some places to cut new channels.
The Shonkin Sag, along the
flanks of the Highwood Mountains, is a classic example of one of
these glacial channels.
During the last 20,000 years
(Recent Epoch),
the area was again subjected to erosion, establishing the present-day
drainage pattern in the Highwood Bench area, which may or may not
correspond to the preglacial drainage network.
Geological units of considerable importance in the investigation
area are the glacial till and.the underlying black shale of the Colo­
rado G r o u p .
Available drill-hole information and exposures along the
Missouri River indicate that the thickness of the glacial till ranges
from a few feet to 60 feet.
Two distinct tills, representing two
separate ice advances, are normally present— the upper till
(youngest)
is normally the thickest and is buff to tan., whereas the lower till
(oldest) is generally only a few feet thick
light to dark gray.
(locally absent) and is
A pebble or boulder zone is frequently encountered
between the two tills.
Except for the upper 2 or 3 feet, the entire
till profile is loaded with salt crystals— an inexhaustible supply..
The till consists of unsorted clay and silt and contains wellrounded pebbles scattered throughout.
A few sandy lenses were en­
countered in some of the test holes, and several gravel beds
(rep­
resenting temporary glacial channels of the ancestral Missouri River)
-38is completely dry, indicating that it is virtually impermeable; con­
sequently, there is no upward or downward movement of water in the
unweathered shale of the Colorado Group.
I/ Marvin R. Miller, "Hydrology of Saline-Seep Spots in Dryland Farm
Areas - A Preliminary E v al u a t i o n ," Saline Seep-Fallow Workshop,
February 22-23, 1971, Sponsored by the Highwood Alkali Control
Association, H i g h w o o d , Montana.
The above was used with the a u t h o r 1
permission.
APPENDIX II
—40Area:
Chouteau County
Date:
Sept. 21, 1970
Location:
Section 3, T22N, R8E, Fred Booth test plots
Soil T y p e : Gerber silty clay loam
Classification:
Vertic Agriborolls - fine montmorillonitic family
Parent M a t e r i a l s : Deep alluvium over till
Physiography and Relief:
Nearly level terrace
Elevation:
3200 feet
S l o p e : less, than 1%
Aspect:
Level
Drainage:
Well drained.
Water table more than 46 feet (test well)
Permeability:
Moderately slow throughout most of profile
Native Vegetation:
Barley, small grain
Root distribution:
Plentiful to 37 inches, few to 78 inches
Sample No. 70-COC-l (I to 8) Described by C. 0. Clark
Soil P r o f i l e :
Gerber silty clay loam, nearly level.
Ap 0-8"
Grayish brown (10 yR5/2) silty clay loam, very dark
grayish brown (10yR3/a) moist; strong fine granular
and subangular blocky structure; hard, friable, sticky
and p l a s t i c ; abrupt wavy boundary.
B2t 8-14"
Brown (10yR5/3) silty clay, brown (10yR4/3) with dark
brown (10yR3/3) coatings on peds; strong medium
prismatic and strong fine subangular blocky structure
separating to strong very fine subangular blocks;
very hard, friable sticky and very plastic; contin­
uous thin clay films on faces of p e d s ; common very
fine and fine roots; many very fine and micro
pores; clear wavy boundary.
B31 14-21"
Light brownish gray (2.5y6/2) with graying brown
(10yR5/2) coating on peds silty clay loam, dark
grayish brown (10yR4/2) moist; moderate medium and
coarse prismatic and moderate fine and medium sub­
angular blocky structure separating to moderate
very fine subangular blocks; very hard, friable,
sticky and plastic; strongly effervescents; common
thin clay films and stains along p r i s m s ; common very
fine and fine roots; many very fine and micro pores,
common fine pores; gradual wavy boun d a r y .
—41—
B32ca 21-29" •
Light brownish gray (2.5y6/2) silty clay loam dark
grayish brown (2.5y4/2) moist; weak medium and coarse
prismatic structure separating to moderate very f i n e ,
fine and medium separating to moderate'very f i n e ,
fine and medium subangular blocks; very hard, very
friable, sticky and plastic; common fine and very
fine roots; many very fine and micro p o r e s , common
fine pores; strongly effervescent with common fine
.distinct lime masses and threads, fewer pebbles
■lime coated; gradual wavy boundary.
Clca 29-37"
Light brownish gray (2.5y6/2) silty clay loam, dark
grayish brown (2.5y4/2) moist; weak medium and fine
subangular blocky structure; very hard, very friable
sticky and plastic; common very fine and fine roots;
many very fine and micro pores, common fine pores;
few weathered shale fragments; strongly effervescent
with common fine distinct lime masses and threads,
few pebbles lime coated, gradual wavy b o u n d a r y .
C2Ca 37-48"
Light brownish gray (2.5y6/2) in upper 4' grayish
brown (2.5y5/l) lower 5" light clay loam, dark gray­
ish brown (2.5y4/2) in upper 4" dark grayish brown
(2.5y4/l) moist in lower 5", weak medium and coarse
subangular blocky structure separates to moderate
fine and very fine subangular blocks in weathered
shale chips; very hard, friable, sticky and plastic; ■
few fine and very fine roots; many very fine and
micro pores, common fine pores; few lignite chips
and limonite specks; strong effervescent with common
fine distinct lime masses and threads, few pebbles
lime coated, diffuse wavy b o u n d a r y .
C3cs 48-78"
Pale brown (2.5y6/3) with light brownish gray and
light yellowish brown (2.5y6/2 & 6/4) clay loam,
dark grayish brown (2.5y4/2) with very dark grayish
brown (2.5y3/2) coatings on peds moist; moderate
medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; very
hard, firm, sticky and plastic; few fine and very
fine roots, many very fine and micro pores, common
fine pores; few lignite chips and limonite specks,
few and common gypsum streaks and coating on blocks
masses; diffuse wavy boundaryw
-42C4 78-96"
Light brownish gray (2.5y6/2) light yellowish brown
mottlings (2.5y6/4) clay loam, dark graying brown
(2.5y4/2) with mottles of dark yellowish brown
(10yR4/4) and dark gray (5y4/2) moist; massive and
ploty; very hard, firm, sticky and plastic; very few
roots; few pores; few lignite chips and limonite
specks; few threads and masses of gypsum; slight
effervescent.
APPENDIX III
PLOT NO. I
DATE
D AYS
5/27
INTO E X P E R I M E N T
.000
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
POTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
* * * *****
*****
*****
******
32.38
4.86
157.
15
32.36
9.71
147.
30
45
31.10
14.38
0.
32.39
19.23
60
142.
33.48
24.26
0.
75
32.91
29.19
297.
90
34.52
34.37
105
0.
32.91
120
39.31
429.
30.04
135
43.81
0.
30.91
150
48.45
142.
52.59
165
27.58
0.
28.89
180
56.92
186.
195
28.20
0.
61.15
28.66
210
65.45
566.
29.17
225
69.82
0.
29.65
74.27
240
613.
28.94
78.61
255
0.
DATE
DAYS
5/27
INTO EXPERIMENT
.008
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
POTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
*****
********
*****
******
15
36.35
5.45
146.
30
34.05
10.56
142.
45
32.39
15.42
0.
60
32.66
20.32
173.
75
33.05
25.27
0.
90
32.60
30.16
291.
105
34.27
35.30
0.
120
33.24
40.29
402.
135
31.03
44.94
0.
150
32.24
49.78
146.
165
28.13
54.00
0.
180
28.82
58.32
213.
195
29.21
62.70
0.
210
29.64
67.15
324.
225
29.45
71.57
0.
240
29.28
75.96
402.
255
29.08
80.32
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.27
35.26
33.91
33. 33
33.23
32.94
34.09
32.93
30.84
32.26
28.25
30. 10
30.18
30.22
29.84
30.21
29.21
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.44
10.73
15.82
20.82
25.80
30.74
35.85
40.79
45.42
50.26
54.50
59.01
63.54
68.07
72.55
77.08
81.46
.018
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
—6.
136.
0.
185.
0.
304.
0.
415.
0.
150.
0.
239.
0.
348.
0.
423.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.02
34.59
33.63
35.20
35.06
33.12
33.34
33.55
30.66
31.29
28.56
28.82
29.42
30.14
29.70
29.56
28.96
ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT
NOTE
MAN O M E T E R READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.40
10.59
15.64
20.92
26.18
31.14
36.14
41.18
45.78
50.47
54.75
59.08
63.49
68.01
72.47
76.90
81.24
.031
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
-5.
-3.
0.
167.
0.
304.
0.
415.
0.
150.
0.
245.
0.
360.
0.
441.
0.
FAILURE OR
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERC E N T
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.39
33.82
32.76
33.96
34.71
34.25
34.61
32.96
29.50
31.54
27.77
29.39
29.15
29. 99
29.37
29.61
28.25
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.31
10.38
15.29
20.39
25.59
30.73
35.92
40.87
45.29
50.02
54.19
58.60
62.97
67.47
71.87
76.31
80.55
.042
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
— 5.
—6.
0.
136.
0.
304.
0.
415.
0.
150.
0.
249.
0.
368.
0.
444.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.62
34.13
31.98
34.32
34.79
34.61
35.22
33.24
29.86
31.28
27.91
29.20
29.38
29.91
28.83
29.25
28.67
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.34
10.46
15.26
20.41
25.63
30.82
36.10
41.09
45.57
50.26
54.45
58.82
63.23
67.72
72.04
76.43
80.73
.053
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
-2.
-5.
0.
102.
0.
300.
0.
415.
0.
150.
0.
247.
0.
375.
0.
465.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
i
A.
(Ti
I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.36
33.98
32.41
34.59
34.20
35.03
35.59
33. 16
30.13
31.58
27.91
28. 38
29.02
29.22
28.73
29.27
27.88
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.30
10.40
15.26
20.45
25.58
30.84
36.18
41.15
45.67
50.40
54.59
58.85
63.20
67.58
71.89
76.28
80.47
.063
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
6.
2.
0.
81.
0.
291.
0.
422.
0.
152.
0.
246.
0.
384.
0.
471.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.49
34.95
33.61
34.64
35.32
35.27
35.85
33.78
30.89
32.01
28.76
29.63
29.78
29.76
30.27
30.20
28.83
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.47
10.72
15.76
20.95
26.25
31.54
36.92
41.99
46.62
51.42
55.74
60.18
64.65
69.11
73.65
78.18
82.51
.074
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
9.
5.
0.
71.
0.
274.
0.
422.
0.
152.
0.
242.
0.
387.
0.
473.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.91
34.53
33.15
34.86
35.42
35.25
36.32
34.37
31.37
32.28
28.29
30.08
29.98
29.73
29.83
30.44
29.42
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.54
10.72
15.69
20.92
26.23
31.52
36.97
42.12
46.83
51.67
55.91
60.42
64.92
69.38
73.86
78.42
82.84
.084
TOTAL
WATER
P OTEN­
TIAL
******
13.
10.
0.
58.
0.
273.
0.
422.
0.
154.
0.
236.
0.
398.
0.
492.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.55
33.83
32.45
34.68
34.62
35.00
35.94
34.67
32.15
32.17
28.58
29.56
29.96
29.73
28.93
29.30
29.37
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.33
10.41
15.27
20.48
25.67
30.92
36.31
41.51
46.33
51.16
55.45
59.88
64.37
68.83
73.17
77.57
81.97
.098
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
13.
10.
0.
44.
0.
266.
0.
410.
0.
152.
0.
231.
0.
406.
0.
506.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.46
33.70
33.06
34.55
34.76
34.86
35.05
34.37
32.85
32.70
28.85
29.54
29.56
29.56
28.86
28.78
28.80
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.32
10.37
15.33
20.51
25.73
30.96
36.22
41.37
46.30
51.20
55.53
59.96
64.40
68.83
73.16
77.48
81.80
.108
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
13.
10.
0.
40.
0.
262.
0.
318.
0.
136.
0.
224.
0.
410.
0.
515.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.01
34.13
33.49
34.31
35.35
35.65
35.70
35.15
32.38
33.33
28.28
29.10
29.46
29.86
29.38
29.09
28.82
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.40
10.52
15.54
20.69
25.99
31.34
36.70
41.97
46.83
51.82
56.07
60.43
64.85
69.33
73.74
78.10
82.42
.128
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
20.
16.
0.
40.
0.
259.
0.
217.
0.
152.
0.
226.
0.
414.
0.
526.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
* * * *****
36.19
34.18
32.74
35.15
34.68
35.23
35.30
34.92
33.28
34.03
29.22
29.58
29. 15
29.86
28.96
29.71
28.08
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.43
10.55
15.46
20.74
2 5.94
31.22
36.52
41.76
46.75
51.85
56.24
60.67
65.04
69.52
73.87
78.32
82.54
.148
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
20.
16.
0.
39.
0.
235.
0.
188.
0.
152.
0.
234.
0.
437.
0.
537.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.89
34.77
32.90
35.24
36.15
35.08
35.95
35.98
33.48
34.67
30.47
30.02
30. 19
30.43
29.80
29-82
27.98
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.53
10.75
15.69
20.97
26.39
31.66
37.05
42.45
47.47
52.67
57.24
61.74
66.27
70.83
75.30
79.78
83.97
.169
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
21.
17.
0.
39.
0.
224.
0.
166.
0.
135.
0.
236.
0.
452.
0.
295.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE
DAYS
5/27
INTO E X P E R I M E N T
.200
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
P OTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
******
*****
***** * * *
*****
15
34.98
5.25
21.
30
34.22
10. 38
16.
45
33.12
15.35
0.
60
35.44
20.66
37.
75
34.75
25.88
0.
35.07
90
31.14
197.
105
35.54
36.47
0.
120
34. 80
41.69
161.
135
33.34
46.69
0.
150
34.04
51.79
135.
165
30.81
56.42
0.
29. 88
180
60.90
236.
29.11
195
65.27
0.
210
29.43
69.68
464.
225
29.98
74.18
0.
240
29.43
78.59
238.
0.
255
28.03
82.80
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/27
DAYS
INTO EXPERIMENT
.223
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
POTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
*****
********
******
*****
15
35.20
5.28
21.
30
34.19
10.41
16.
45
32.19
15.24
0.
60
34.32
20.39
35.
75
34.76
25.60
0.
90
34.04
30.70
188.
105
34.81
35.93
0.
120
34.52
41.11
143.
o.
135
31.96
45.90
136.
50.90
150
32.70
55.44
0.
165
30.94
59.97
231.
180
30- 16
29.39
64.38
0.
195
29.67
210
68.83
472.
225
73.10
28.50
0.
240
29.74
77.56
226.
255
28.29
81.81
0.
NOTE
ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
FAILURE OR
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERC E N T
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.39
34.25
33.70
34. 10
35.15
34.63
35.69
35.55
32.45
32.98
30.63
30.92
28.99
29. 59
29.66
29.59
28.76
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.31
10.45
15.50
20.62
25.89
31.08
36.44
41.77
46.64
51.58
56. 18
60. 82
65.17
69.60
74.05
78.49
82. 80
.247
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
22.
17.
0.
35.
0.
186.
0.
143.
0.
133.
0.
223.
0.
480.
0.
224.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.45
34.41
32.95
35.16
35.42
34.90
35.74
35.56
32.87
33.33
31.41
30.72
29.50
30.10
29.57
29.78
28.52
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.47
10.63
15.57
20.84
26.16
31.39
36.75
42.09
47.02
52.02
56.73
61.34
65.76
70.28
74.71
79.18
83.46
.292
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
22.
20.
0.
35.
0.
177.
0.
143.
0.
132.
0.
238.
0.
510.
0.
593.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
Ul
M
I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
* * * *****
35.54
34.18
33.26
35.01
35.85
35.87
35.85
35.03
33.11
33.29
30.79
31.22
29.65
29.93
29.54
28.96
28.57
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.33
10.46
15.45
20.70
26.08
31.46
36.83
42.09
47.06
52.05
56.67
61.35
65.80
70.29
74.72
79.06
83.35
.334
TOTAL
WATER
P OTEN­
TIAL
******
24.
20.
0.
35.
0.
163.
0.
143.
0.
128.
0.
239.
0.
528.
0.
223.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/27
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.65
33.97
33.14
35.10
35.16
35.00
35.23
35.47
32.35
33.02
31.49
30.16
30.21
29.22
28.43
28.57
28.39
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.35
10.44
15.41
20.68
25.95
31.20
36.49
41.81
46.66
51.61
56.34
60.86
65.39
69.78
74.04
78.33
82.58
.375
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
24.
20.
0.
35.
0.
158.
0.
143.
0.
125.
0.
245.
0.
548.
0.
222.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
Ln
U>
I
DATE 5/28
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERC E N T
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
34.99
33.46
33.19
34.36
34.89
34. 70
35.26
35.30
32.51
33. 09
30.55
31.13
30.37
29.93
28.54
29.53
27.49
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.25
10.27
15.25
20.40
25.63
30.84
36.13
41.42
46.30
51.26
55.85
60.52
65.07
69.56
73.84
78.27
82.40
.894
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
28.
20.
0.
41.
0.
115.
0.
144.
0.
123.
0.
293.
0.
147.
0.
222.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/28
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
34.93
33.80
32.97
33.97
34.03
34.49
34.93
34.00
32.43
32.92
31.26
31.18
29.96
30.05
29.97
29.56
28.38
1.035
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.24
10.31
15.26
20.35
25.46
30.63
35.87
40.97
45.83
50.77
55.46
60.14
64.63
69.14
73.63
78.07
82.33
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
28.
21.
0.
47.
0.
121.
0.
148.
0.
29.
0.
296.
0.
157.
0.
220.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 5/28
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
***** * * *
34.28
33.37
32.42
34. 73
34.63
33.73
35.15
33.74
32.31
32.79
30.53
30.91
30.65
29.93
29.80
29.58
28.89
1.296
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.14
10.15
15.01
20.22
25.41
30.47
35.75
40.81
45.65
50.57
55.15
59.79
64.38
68.87
73.34
77.78
82.11
TOTAL
WATER
P OTEN­
TIAL
******
36.
29.
0.
58.
0.
133.
0.
139.
0.
32.
Oo
254.
0.
165.
0.
219.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/29
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
34.85
34.52
33.12
33.84
35.26
34.60
34.41
34.18
31.95
33.80
31.63
32.20
31.19
30.43
30.00
30.59
29.61
1.885
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.23
10.41
15.37
20.45
25.74
30.93
36.09
41.22
46.01
51.08
55.83
60.65
65.33
69.90
74.40
78.99
83.43
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
47.
43.
0.
50.
0.
121.
0.
143.
0.
14.
0.
292.
0.
181.
0.
215.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
Ln
Ul
I
DATE 5/30
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERC E N T
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
33.84
33.43
32.25
34. 17
34.26
33.91
34.54
34.54
32. 14
33.05
31.30
31.52
30.54
30.54
15.21
30.03
29.17
2.916
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.08
10.09
14.93
20.05
25.19
30.28
35.46
40.64
45.46
50.42
55.11
59.84
64.42
69.00
71.29
75.79
80.17
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
48.
55.
0.
54.
0.
129.
0.
155.
0.
142.
0.
314.
0.
199.
0.
203.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 5/31
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.66
34 =06
32.85
34.65
34.77
34.51
35 = 32
34.53
32.14
33.34
31.10
31.28
30.34
30.22
30.44
30.33
29.65
4.260
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.35
10.46
15.39
20.58
25.80
30.98
36.27
41.45
46.28
51.28
55.94
60.63
65.18
69.72
74.28
78.83
83.28
TOTAL
WATER
P OTEN­
TIAL
******
33.
28.
0.
100.
0.
135.
0.
158.
0.
136.
0.
349.
0.
213.
0.
205.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 6/ 2
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
34.99
33.89
32.67
34.22
35.04
34.04
35.00
34.64
31.80
33.25
31.72
31.54
30.54
30. 02
29.83
30.51
29.00
6.176
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.25
10.33
15.23
20.37
25.62
30.73
35.98
41.17
45.94
50.93
55.69
60.42
65.00
69.50
73.98
78.55
82.90
TOTAL
WATER
P OTEN­
TIAL
******
28.
24.
0.
98.
0.
132.
0.
152.
0.
40.
0.
254.
0.
220.
0.
216.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 6/ 3
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
34.67
33.78
33.01
34.21
35.46
35.06
35.66
35.06
32.29
33.70
31.62
31.91
30 = 23
30.98
30.31
30.37
29.21
7.051
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5 = 20
10.27
15.22
20.35
25.67
30.93
36.28
41.54
46.38
51.43
56.18
60.97
65.50
70.15
74.69
79.25
83.63
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
41.
50.
0.
104.
0.
136.
0.
170.
0.
173.
0.
255.
0.
223.
0.
217.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
Ul
I
DATE 6/ 8
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.05
34.57
33.09
34.48
35. 13
35.21
34.93
35. 16
33.24
33.28
32.02
32.08
30.58
30.99
31.12
30.37
30. 13
12.051
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.26
10.44
15.41
20.58
25.85
31.13
36.37
41.64
46.63
51.62
56.43
61.24
65.83
70.47
75. 14
79.70
84.22
TOTAL
WATER
P OTEN­
TIAL
******
28.
36.
0.
86.
0.
108.
0.
136.
0.
174.
0.
284.
0.
219.
0.
230.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 6/17
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
34.54
33.68
32.59
34.77
34.86
34.62
35.50
34.11
32.71
34.42
31.58
32.11
31.42
30.63
30.95
30.69
30.26
21.051
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.18
10.23
15.12
20.34
25.57
30.76
36.08
41.20
46.11
51.27
56.01
60.82
65.53
70.13
74.77
79.38
83.91
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
64.
82.
0.
242.
0.
157.
0.
161.
0.
199.
0.
261.
0.
230.
0.
247.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 6/21
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
* * * *****
33.31
34.39
32.57
34.09
34.84
34.71
36.41
35.09
32.62
34.41
31.73
32.08
31.42
31.93
31.38
30.97
31.17
25.051
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.00
10.16
15.04
20. 15
25.38
30.59
36.05
41.31
46.21
51.37
56.13
60.94
65.65
70.44
75.15
79.79
84.47
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
77c
87.
0.
Oc
0.
159.
0.
162.
0.
203.
0.
226.
0.
236.
0.
258.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 6/28
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
30.35
33.70
32.77
34.97
34.31
35.12
34.89
32.02
32.66
30.93
31.40
30.61
30.80
30.67
30.29
30.46
30.97
32.051
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.55
9.61
14.52
19.77
24.91
30.18
35.42
40.22
45.12
49.76
54.47
59.06
63.68
68.28
72.82
77.39
82.04
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
147.
133.
0.
161.
0.
188.
0.
192.
0.
224.
0.
213.
0.
273.
0.
278.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
i
Ul
w
I
DATE 7/ 7
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
30.81
32.97
31.39
32.58
34.46
33.80
34.77
34.88
31.63
32.49
31.08
32.02
30.62
30.85
30.41
30.87
30.00
41.051
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.62
9.57
14.28
19.16
24.33
29.40
34.62
39.85
44.59
49.47
54.13
58,93
63.53
68. 15
72.71
77.34
81.84
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
184.
138.
0.
0.
0.
200.
0.
211.
0.
228.
0.
177.
0.
276.
0.
297.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 7/13
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
30.52
33.79
31.89
33.16
34,43
34.34
34.56
34.69
32.05
32.94
31.19
31.75
30.84
30 =82
31.27
30.70
30.10
47.051
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.58
9.65
14.43
19.40
24.57
29.72
34.90
40.11
44.91
49.85
54.53
59.29
63.92
68.54
73.23
77.84
82.35
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
158.
96.
0.
133.
0.
207.
0.
217.
0.
213.
0.
154.
0.
266.
0.
293.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
PLOT NO. I
DATE
DAYS
7/21
I NTO EXPE R I M E N T
55. 051
:
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
P OTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
*****
********
*****
******
15
29.02
4.35
62.
30
33.91
9.44
125.
45
32.06
14.25
0.
60
32.61
19. 14
0.
75
34.47
24.31
0.
90
29.50
34.62
216.
105
35.46
34.82
0.
120
35.30
40=12
235.
135
31.92
44.91
0.
150
32.79
209.
49.82
165
31.23
54.51
0.
180
31.48
59.23
101.
195
63.91
31.22
0.
210
30.82
68.54
273.
225
31.13
73.21
0.
240
30.96
77.85
301.
30.87
255
82.48
Oo
DATE
DAYS
7/26
INTO EXPERIMENT
60.051
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
POTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
*****
********
*****
******
15
28.49
4.27
70.
30
33.93
9.36
116.
45
31.97
14.16
0.
60
32.87
19.09
0.
75
34.82
24.31
0.
90
34.03
29.42
227.
105
35.50
34.74
0.
120
34.89
39.97
282.
135
31.57
44.71
0.
150
32.55
49.59
253.
165
31.19
54.27
0.
180
31.78
59.04
119.
195
30.91
63.68
0.
210
30.85
68.30
270.
225
30.42
72.87
0.
240
30.81
77.49
293.
255
30.10
82.00
0.
NOTE
ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT
M A NOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR o
FAILURE OR
DATE 8/12
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERC E N T
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
29.25
33.15
31.56
32.24
34.20
33.42
34.30
34.45
31.13
31.85
31.06
31.39
30.25
31.04
30.43
30.32
29.95
76.926
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.39
9.36
14.09
18.93
24.06
29.07
34.22
39.39
44.06
48.83
53.49
58.20
62.74
67.39
71.96
76.51
81.00
TOTAL
WATER
P OTEN­
TIAL
******
-24.
108.
0.
37.
0.
213.
0.
167.
0.
215.
0.
39.
0.
253.
0.
304.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 8/14
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
30.30
33.85
31.78
32.85
35.02
34.83
35.59
35.44
31.84
32.64
31.49
32.15
31.55
31.06
31.63
31.30
31.03
79.156
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.55
9.62
14.39
19.32
24.57
29.79
35.13
40.45
45.23
50.12
54.85
59.67
64.40
69.06
73.80
78.50
83.15
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
35.
97.
0.
0.
0.
194.
0.
173.
0.
239.
0.
29.
0.
264.
0.
293.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
CTN
M
I
PLOT NO. I
DATE
DAYS
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
8/18
INTO EXPERIMENT
83. 218
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
P OTEN­
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
********
*****
******
29.33
4.40
35.
33.57
9.43
140.
31.66
14.18
0.
32.87
19.11
192.
35.15
24.39
0.
34.02
29.49
197.
34.57
34.67
0.
35.28
39.97
185.
31.34
44.67
0.
32.53
49.55
241.
31.48
54.27
0.
31.35
58.97
173.
30.30
63.52
0.
68.19
31.13
247.
31.39
72.89
0.
30.98
77.54
287.
30.59
82.13
0.
DATE
DAYS
8/28
INTO EXPER I M E N T
93. 072
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
POTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
********
*****
******
*****
15
29.32
4.40
0.
30
32.75
9.31
128.
45
31.23
14.00
0.
60
32.26
18.83
0.
75
33.84
23.91
0.
90
33.59
28.95
193.
105
34.49
34.12
0.
120
34.47
39.29
197.
135
31.48
44.02
0.
150
31.84
48.79
223.
165
30.58
53.38
0.
180
31.12
58.05
213.
195
30.77
62.66
0.
210
30.85
67.29
246.
225
31.78
72.06
0.
240
30.21
76.59
278.
255
29.69
81.04
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 9/ 6
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT 102.051
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
32.35
34.57
32.31
33.29
34.76
34.10
34.77
35.27
31.96
32.58
31.11
31.43
31.21
30.66
32.55
30.90
30.71
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.85
10.04
14. 89
19.88
25.09
30.21
35.43
40.72
45.51
50.40
55.06
59.78
64.46
69.06
73.94
78.58
83.18
TOTAL
WATER
P OTEN­
TIAL
******
52.
75.
Oe
0.
0.
200.
0.
200.
0.
247.
0.
280.
0.
292.
0.
277.
0.
PLOT NO. I
DATE 9/26
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT 122.051
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
32.00
32.84
31.56
32.51
33.55
33.69
34.45
34.27
30.52
32.56
29.50
30.36
29.63
29.98
30.01
29.91
29.17
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.80
9.73
14.46
19.34
24.37
29.42
34.59
39.73
44.31
49.19
53.62
58.17
62.61
67.11
71.61
76.10
80.47
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
18.
45.
0.
0.
0.
151.
0.
197.
0.
217.
0.
352.
0.
311.
0.
303.
0.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 8/ 3
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
24.78
32.97
32.49
32.74
31.76
33.17
33.84
33.61
33.18
34.47
35.52
36.69
36.25
28.61
30.27
30.75
30.76
30.31
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
3.72
8.66
13.54
18.45
23.21
28.19
33.26
38.30
43.28
48.45
53.78
59.28
64.72
69.01
73.55
78.16
82.78
87.33
.OOO
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
192.
226.
143.
143.
81.
102.
205.
310.
528.
571.
282.
0.
184 =
610.
238.
426.
486.
673.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/ 3
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
37.16
35.45
35.25
35.02
32.73
33.69
34.30
34.03
33.90
35.60
36.49
37.09
36.56
29.07
30.35
31.24
30.72
30 =88
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.57
10.89
16.18
21.43
26.34
31.39
36.54
41.64
46.73
52.07
57.54
63 = 11
68.59
72.95
77.50
82 = 19
86.80
91.43
.042
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
284.
262.
157.
266.
64 .
60.
6.
0.
572 =
625.
358.
507.
216.
450.
303.
469 =
518 =
690.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 8/ 3
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
37.13
35.36
34.46
34.48
34.37
34.56
34.75
34.04
33.40
35.38
36.25
36.69
36.25
28.80
29.88
30.75
30.72
30.87
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.57
10.87
16.04
21.21
26.37
31.55
36.77
41.87
46.88
52.19
57.63
63.13
68.57
72.89
77.37
81.98
86.59
91.22
.070
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
266.
250.
157.
254.
2.
35.
6.
0.
575.
633.
368.
547.
220.
488.
314.
471.
522.
712.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/ 3
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.72
34.69
34.45
34.47
33.40
34.00
35.01
34.67
34.23
35.32
35.90
36.71
35.89
28.27
29.36
30.33
30.47
30.31
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.51
10.71
15.88
21.05
26.06
31.16
36.41
41.61
46.75
52.04
57.43
62.94
68.32
72.56
76.96
81.51
86.08
90 = 63
.147
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
140.
63.
155.
182.
0.
-18.
10.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
0.
575.
662.
415.
610.
265.
614.
366.
468.
549 .
746.
CTi
O'
I
t,■
DATE
DAYS
8/ 3
INTO EXPER I M E N T
180
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
POTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
*****
********
*****
******
15
37.11
5.57
86.
30
35.34
10.87
54.
45
34.88
16. 10
136.
60
34.74
21.31
135.
75
33.94
26.40
-18.
90
34.43
31.57
0.
105
35.06
36. 82
10.
120
34.69
42,03
0.
135
34.60
47.22
501.
150
36.70
52.72
629.
165
36.49
58.20
392.
180
37.39
63.81
486.
195
36. 51
69.28
257.
210
29.22
73.67
636.
225
29.83
78.14
358.
240
30.41
82.70
457.
255
31.04
87.36
526.
270
30.95
92.00
736.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE
8/ 3
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
.223
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
POTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
********
*****
*****
******
15
36.57
5.49
73.
30
34.83
10.71
0.
45
34 o64
15.91
117.
60
34.40
21.07
123.
75
33 =94
26.16
0.
90
34.41
31.32
0.
105
35.21
36.60
12.
120
35 o 12
41.87
0.
135
34.82
47.09
21.
150
36.47
52.56
433.
165
37.60
58.20
391.
180
36.65
63.70
204.
195
36.24
69.14
289.
210
28 = 66
73.43
658.
225
29.74
77.90
375.
240
30.09
82.41
361.
255
30.33
86.96
547.
270
30= 16
91.48
743.
NOTE
ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT
M A NOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR *
FAILURE OR
DATE 8/ 3
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERC E N T
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.29
34.21
34.18
34.10
33.62
34.37
34.46
34.38
34.40
35.88
36.50
36.65
35.74
28.95
29.17
30.16
30.21
30.13
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.44
10.57
15.70
20.82
25.86
31.02
36.18
41.34
46.50
51.88
57.36
62.86
68.22
72.56
76.93
81.46
85.99
90.51
.271
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
66.
55.
-11.
108.
0.
0.
13.
0.
13.
297.
383.
162.
295.
664.
387.
228.
547.
744.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/ 3
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.87
34.38
34.42
34.50
33.76
34.27
34.28
34.75
34.58
35.80
36.89
36.81
35.89
28.59
30.46
30.11
30.32
30.52
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.53
10.69
15.85
21.03
26.09
31.23
36.37
41.58
46.77
52.14
57.67
63.19
68.58
72.87
77.44
81.95
86.50
91.08
.307
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
63.
54.
0.
71.
0.
0.
13.
0.
-9.
201.
373.
144.
282.
656.
398.
136.
548.
746.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
i
01
03
I
DATE 8/ 3
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.24
34.30
34.58
34.03
33.75
34.40
34. 73
34.64
34.35
36.09
37.44
37.55
36. 09
29. 13
30.11
29.99
30.44
30. 12
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.44
10.58
15.77
20.87
25.93
31.09
36.30
41.50
46. 65
52.07
57.68
63.31
68.73
73.10
77.61
82.11
86.68
91.20
.346
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
60.
55.
0.
51.
0.
0.
13.
0.
-9.
151.
366.
136.
285.
73.
411o
119.
548.
751.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/ 4
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.66
34.49
34.29
33.87
33.92
34.21
34.76
34.42
34.18
35.38
37.06
36.31
36.10
29.19
29.89
30.14
29.96
29.89
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.50
10.67
15.82
20.90
25.98
31.12
36.33
41.49
46.62
51.93
57.49
62.93
68.35
72.73
77.21
81.73
86.23
90.71
.387
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
56.
55.
0.
41.
0.
0.
13.
0.
-18.
131.
360.
132.
288.
66 .
422.
112.
548.
753.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 8/ 4
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.60
34.73
34.68
34. 88
34.31
34.42
35.06
34.47
35.04
35.82
37.62
37.69
36.49
29.25
29.80
29. 87
30.69
30.31
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.49
10.70
15.90
21.14
26.28
31.44
36.70
41.87
47.13
52.50
58.14
63.80
69.27
73.66
78.13
82.61
87.21
91.76
.431
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
55.
55.
0.
32.
0.
0.
16.
0.
— 18.
117.
343.
129.
300.
66.
427.
104.
545.
753.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/ 4
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.96
35.63
35.07
34.97
34.38
34.79
36.00
35.14
35.47
36.81
37.69
38.22
37.05
29.65
30.81
30.68
31.23
30.78
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.54
10.89
16.15
21.40
26.55
31.77
37.17
42.44
47.76
53.28
58.94
64.67
70.23
74.68
79.30
83.90
88.58
93.20
.470
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
54.
55.
20.
0.
0.
0.
13.
0.
-18.
109.
329.
125.
297.
70.
433.
98.
548.
755.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 8/ 4
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35. 78
34.69
34.20
34.16
34.07
33.78
34.61
34.01
33.91
35.70
36.52
36.65
35.93
28.88
30. 04
30.38
30. 51
30.34
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.37
10.57
15.70
20.83
25.94
31.00
36.19
41.30
46.38
51.74
57.21
62.71
68.10
72.43
76.94
81.50
86.07
90.63
.512
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
54.
55.
0.
IOo
0.
0.
13.
0.
0.
105.
315.
123.
296.
73.
438.
85.
539.
755.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/ 4
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.76
34.45
34.74
34.23
33.54
34.64
35.01
35.00
34.95
36.28
37.12
36.73
36.46
29.94
30.01
30.44
30.84
30.17
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.51
10.68
15.89
21.03
26.06
31.25
36.51
41.76
47.00
52.44
58.01
63.52
68.99
73.48
77.98
82.55
87.17
91.70
.549
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
54.
55.
0.
5.
0.
0.
16.
0.
0.
105.
306.
123.
293.
75.
444 c
94.
534.
755.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
•vj
H
I
DATE 8/ 4
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
37.13
33.95
34.71
34.82
34.38
35.16
34.87
34.79
34.59
36.51
37.67
36.83
36.42
30.25
30.37
30.36
30.59
30.61
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
* * ***
5.57
10.66
15.87
21.09
26.25
31.52
36.76
41.97
47.16
52.64
58.29
63.81
69.28
73.81
78 = 37
82.92
87.51
92. 10
.802
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
47.
54.
0.
0.
0.
0.
17.
0.
0.
93.
194.
112.
223.
82.
417.
78.
430.
706.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/ 4
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
37.08
35.79
35.06
34.76
34.80
35.17
35.68
35.43
35.23
37.25
37.74
37.72
37.16
31.17
30.79
30.61
31.09
31.20
1.219
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.56
10.93
16.19
21.40
26.62
31.90
37.25
42.56
47.85
53.43
59.10
64.75
70.33
75.00
79.62
84.21
88.88
93.56
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
40.
43.
0.
0.
0.
0.
16.
0.
0.
94.
146 =
105.
182.
91.
369.
70.
289.
706.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
i
-j
NJ
I
DATE 8/ 5
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.96
35.77
35.58
35.38
34.70
35.02
35.66
35.00
35. 16
36.79
37.59
38.36
37.31
30.81
31.73
31.01
30.75
30.51
1.948
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.54
10.91
16.25
21. 55
26.76
32.01
37.36
42.61
47.89
53.40
59.04
64.80
70.39
75.01
79.77
84.42
89.04
93.61
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
36.
39.
0.
Oo
0.
0.
16.
0.
-9.
68.
64.
83 =
128.
96.
284.
68.
219.
709.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/ 5
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
36.10
36.10
35.32
35.50
34.67
35.64
35.95
35.83
35.50
37.27
38.60
38.34
37.20
30.89
32.11
31.45
31.25
30.94
2.260
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.41
10.83
16.13
21.45
26.65
32.00
37.39
42.77
48.09
53.68
59.47
65.22
70.80
75.44
80.25
84.97
89.66
94.30
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
47.
50.
-I.
35.
-2.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
0.
33.
0.
21.
96.
136.
102.
184.
124.
234.
123.
289.
730.
DATE 8/ 6
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
35.05
35.11
35.05
34.33
34.25
34.65
35.28
34.54
35.23
36.63
37.71
38.05
36.95
31.09
31.75
31.27
31.29
30.62
2.969
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
5.26
10.52
15.78
20.93
26.07
31.27
36.56
41.74
47.02
52.52
58.17
63.88
69.43
74.09
78.85
83.54
88.23
92.83
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
70.
75.
21.
37.
9.
2.
48.
8.
51.
HO.
83.
119.
101.
151.
123.
112.
259.
689.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/ 7
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
32.89
34.62
35.06
34.50
33.33
34.37
35.08
35.25
35.03
36.43
37.88
37.80
37.14
30.51
31.26
31.18
31.89
30.89
4.000
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.93
10.13
15.39
20.56
25.56
30.72
35.98
41.27
46.52
51.98
57.67
63.34
68.91
73.48
78.17
82.85
87.63
92.27
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
89.
79.
39.
56.
18.
21.
60.
43.
83.
125.
106.
136.
131.
166.
151.
143.
300.
686.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
i
i
DATE 8/10
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
31.13
34.30
33.81
33.56
32.87
33.86
33.93
34.52
33.82
35.90
36.83
37.47
36.69
30.60
31.42
30.92
31.08
30.55
6.906
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.67
9.81
14.89
19.92
24.85
29.93
35.02
40.20
45.27
50.66
56.18
61.80
67.30
71.89
76.61
81.24
85.91
90.49
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
104.
32.
48 o
77.
71.
109.
70.
104.
119.
146.
140.
170.
154.
190.
143.
182.
297.
671.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/11
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
31.78
33.78
34.34
34.25
33.62
34.37
34.83
35.08
34.89
36.78
38.53
38.07
37.03
30.68
32=17
31.66
31.59
31.35
8.156
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.77
9.83
14.99
20.12
25.17
30.32
35.55
40.81
46.04
51.56
57.34
63.05
68.60
73.20
78.03
82.78
87.52
92.22
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
HO.
98.
87.
123.
73.
41.
83.
119.
119.
146.
140.
170.
154.
213.
143.
182.
297.
341.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
i
in
I
DATE 8/12
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
31.66
34.24
34.40
34.04
33.56
34.52
34.64
34.91
34.58
36.25
38.00
38.13
36.70
30.81
31.61
31.82
31.96
31.56
8.865
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.75
9.89
15.04
20.15
25.18
30.36
35.56
40. 80
45.98
51.42
57.12
62.84
68.35
72.97
77.71
82.48
87.28
92.01
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
112.
105.
78.
75.
48.
33.
85.
100.
150.
158.
119.
181.
142.
200.
127.
190.
258.
292.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/13
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
31.78
34.51
34.25
34.26
33.80
34.30
34.60
34.89
34.59
36.09
38.05
37.64
36.79
30.84
32.07
31.91
31.91
31.27
10.135
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.77
9.94
15.08
20.22
25.29
30.43
35.62
40.86
46.05
51.46
57.17
62.81
68.33
72.96
77.77
82.55
87.34
92.03
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
125.
109.
89.
115.
78.
36.
86.
143.
170.
190.
151.
200.
162.
217.
143.
212.
265.
303.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
DATE 8/14
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
31.73
34.09
33.76
33.78
33.56
33.93
34.77
34.44
34. 14
35.83
37.71
37.36
36.69
31.11
31.90
31.57
32.71
31.40
11.062
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.76
9.87
14.94
20.00
25.04
30.13
35.34
40.51
45.63
51.00
56.66
62.27
67.77
72.43
77.22
81.95
86.86
91.57
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
119.
106.
86.
93.
60.
28.
90.
138.
165.
174.
151.
194.
185.
215.
170.
200.
255.
291.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/15
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
31.90
33.86
34.09
33.34
33.28
34.32
34.32
34.77
34.44
36.01
37.75
37.06
30.63
30.42
32.01
31.40
32.13
30.99
12.125
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.79
9.86
14.98
19.98
24.97
30.12
35.27
40.48
45.65
51.05
56.71
62.27
66.87
71.43
76.23
80.94
85.76
90.41
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
120.
113.
104.
133.
90.
32.
93.
151.
186.
207.
189.
216.
230.
231.
189.
226.
269.
333.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
i
<i
i
DATE 8/18
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
30.92
33.91
33.68
33.73
32.95
33.70
34. 54
34.17
33.68
35.57
37.65
37.86
36.93
30. 84
32.18
31.70
31.54
31.31
15.094
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.64
9.73
14.78
19.84
24.78
29.83
35.01
40. 14
45.19
50.53
56.17
61.85
67.39
72.02
76.84
81.60
86.33
91.03
TOTAL
WATER
P OTEN­
TIAL
******
146.
115.
94.
223.
68.
32.
100.
102.
178.
193.
166.
211.
197.
231.
155.
230.
269.
303.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE 8/28
DAYS INTO EXPERIMENT
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
PERCENT
WATER BY
VOLUME
********
31.04
33.88
33 o22
33.35
32.14
33.77
34.52
34.42
34.01
35.77
37.28
37.75
36.68
30.63
31.98
31.44
31.74
31.32
24.990
TOTAL
WATER
ABOVE
DEPTH
*****
4.66
9.74
14.72
19.72
24.54
29.61
34.79
39.95
45.05
50.42
56.01
61.67
67.17
71.77
76.57
81.28
86.04
90.74
TOTAL
WATER
POTEN­
TIAL
******
136.
135.
6.
102.
32.
-5.
117.
150.
189.
213.
186.
230.
207.
243.
247.
259.
264.
314.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
PLOT NO. 2
DATE
DAYS
9/ 6
INTO EXPE R I M E N T
33. 969
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
P OTEN­
DEPTH
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
*****
********
*****
******
15
31.59
4.74
150.
30
34.28
9.88
139.
45
33.97
14.98
139.
60
34.27
161.
20.12
75
33.00
25.07
41.
90
33.94
30. 16
43.
105
34.70
35.36
131.
120
35.02
40.62
232.
135
34.53
45.80
85.
150
36.44
51.26
94.
165
37.65
56.91
112.
180
38. 33
62.66
116.
195
37.31
68.26
136.
210
33.18
73.23
124.
225
32.49
78.11
161.
240
31.92
82.89
125.
255
32.09
87.71
147.
270
31.01
92.36
209.
DATE
DAYS
DEPTH
*****
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
9/26
INTO EXPERIMENT
53. 969
TOTAL
TOTAL
PERCENT
WATER
WATER
WATER BY
ABOVE
POTEN­
VOLUME
DEPTH
TIAL
********
*****
******
29.00
4.35
166.
31.94
9.14
158.
32.15
13.96
105.
31.60
18.70
158.
30.96
23.35
0.
31.68
28.10
52.
32.82
33.02
182.
33.28
38.02
273.
33.64
43.06
243.
34.51
48.24
258.
36.89
53.77
268.
36.51
59.25
303.
35.91
64.64
282.
29.65
69.08
273.
31.79
73.85
312.
30.80
78.47
301.
31.02
83.12
320.
30.84
87.75
361.
NOTE ZERO VALUES OF TOTAL WATER POTENTIAL DENOTE EQUIPMENT FAILURE OR
MANOMETER READINGS BELOW THE MERCURY RESERVOIR.
3 1762
/
8103
cop. 2
Sisson, James B
HyJraulic
properties of the
Gerber soil
W A M K A ND Ay
-Xnpf. o J dhf
J x.)\ I*
/f
//-
&
T
'I;
otlC*
2 v
COUEGE PUCE
MtottK
COUtGE PUCE. WA
7