• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Dedication
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Review of literature
 Experimental procedure
 Experimental results
 Numerical solution
 Summary and conclusions
 Appendix A: Soil test reports
 Appendix B: Numerical model program...
 Appendix C: Tabulated soil...
 References
 Biographical sketch














Title: Measured and simulated soil water redistribution and extraction patterns of drip-irrigated tomatoes above a shallow water table /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097395/00001
 Material Information
Title: Measured and simulated soil water redistribution and extraction patterns of drip-irrigated tomatoes above a shallow water table /
Physical Description: xiii, 197 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Vellidis, George, 1962-
Publication Date: 1989
Copyright Date: 1989
 Subjects
Subject: Microirrigation -- Mathematical models -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Lysimeter   ( lcsh )
Plant-soil relationships -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Soil moisture -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Water table -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tomatoes -- Irrigation   ( lcsh )
Agricultural Engineering thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Agricultural Engineering -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1989.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 192-196)
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
Statement of Responsibility: by George Vellidis.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097395
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 001483559
oclc - 21085354
notis - AGZ5605

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 6 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
        Page ii
    Dedication
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of Tables
        Page vii
        Page viii
    List of Figures
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
    Abstract
        Page xii
        Page xiii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Review of literature
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Experimental procedure
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
    Experimental results
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Numerical solution
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
    Appendix A: Soil test reports
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
    Appendix B: Numerical model program listing
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
    Appendix C: Tabulated soil parameters
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
    References
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
    Biographical sketch
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
Full Text











MEASURED AND SIMULATED SOIL WATER
REDISTRIBUTION AND EXTRACTION PATTERNS OF
DRIP-IRRIGATED TOMATOES ABOVE A SHALLOW WATER TABLE


















By

GEORGE VELLIDIS
















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1989
































Copyright 1989

by

George Vellidis
















To my parents ..

who encouraged me to reach for the stars













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I would like to express special appreciation and thanks to Dr. Alien G. Smajstrla for

his guidance, assistance, and encouragement throughout this research. His reliable support

and sound advice formed the basis of a rewarding and enjoyable experience at the University

of Florida. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. D.Z. Haman,

Dr. F.S. Zazueta, Dr. G.A. Clark, and Dr. J.J. Delfino for their support.

Special thanks go to Dr. Ken Stone for his friendship and help and to Mr. Danny

Burch for his technical assistance and practical advice during the experimental phase of this

research.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Tracey who helped me collect data, weigh

samples, irrigate tomatoes, repair shelters, and edit my writing. Her encouragement and her

beautiful smile made the problems I encountered much easier to overcome.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


tage

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................. .................. .. iv

LIST OF TABLES ............. ........................ ............ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............. .... ................... ............. ix

ABSTRACT ........... ....... ................... .... ............. xii

CHAPTERS

I INTRODUCTION ...................................... I

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................. ........... 3

Soil W ater Potential ..................................... 3
Measurement of Soil Water .................................. 4
Soil-Moisture Content Measurements .................. 4
Matric Potential Measurements ................. ....... 5
Automation of Matric Potential Measurements ........... 6
Soil Hydraulic Properties ................................ 8
Soil-Moisture Retention Curve ................ ........ 8
Hydraulic Conductivity Curve ................. ....... 8
Water Flow in Unsaturated Soils ............................ 11
N umerical Solutions ................................ 14
Infiltration From a Line Source ...................... 15
Water Extraction by Plant Roots ........................... 17
Lysimetry ..... ............................... ........... 23

3 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ............................ 24

The Field Lysimeter System ............................... 24
Lysimeter Construction ............................ 24
The Data Acquisition System ........................ 31
Lysimeter System Operation ....................... 36
Soil Characteristics ........................................ 38
Bulk Density ...................................... 39
Soil-Moisture Retention Curves ....................... 40
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity ..................... 40
Hydraulic Conductivity Curve ......................... 41

4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ................. ......... . 45

Plant G rowth ........................................... 45
M easurement Accuracy ........ ............................ 46
Water Budget Accuracy .............................. 46







Weekly, Monthly, and Seasonal Water Use Accuracy ........ 46
Crop Water Use ........................................ 47
Partitioning of Crop Water Use ....................... 47
Weekly, Monthly, and Seasonal Water Use ............... 49
Redistribution and Extraction Patterns ........................ 58
Evaporation from the Soil ................................. 66

5 NUMERICAL SOLUTION ................................ 69

One-Dimensional Model Development ........................ 69
Boundary Conditions ............................... 73
Solution ........................................ 76
Tim e Step ....................................... 77
Updating of Soil Parameters .......................... 78
Mass Balance..................................... 78
One-Dimensional Model Verification ........................ 79
Two-Dimensional Model Development ....................... 84
Boundary Conditions ............................... 87
Solution ........................................ 91
Water Extraction by Plant Roots ....................... 92
Two-Dimensional Model Verification ........................ 97
Simulation of the Lysimeter Study ........................... 102
Estimated Daily ET ................................ 105
The Root Distribution Term, RDT ..................... 106
Simulation Results ................................. 109
M odel Applications ...................................... 118

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................... 119

The Lysimeter System .................................... 119
Field Data ............................................. 120
Numerical Simulation .................................... 121
M odel Applications ...................................... 121

APPENDICES

A SOIL TEST REPORTS ................................... 122

B NUMERICAL MODEL PROGRAM LISTING ................. 134

C TABULATED SOIL PARAMETERS ........................ 181

REFERENCES.................................................... 192

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................... 197












vi














LIST OF TABLES


table pnag

3.1. Volumes of Irrigation Applications and Equivalent Depths Over the Lysimeter
Areas. ..................................................... 38

3.2. Characteristic Soil Properties. .................................... 39

3.3. Parameters for van Genuchten's Equation. ......................... 41

4.1. Canopy Dimensions (m) ..................... ........... ... 45

4.2. Monthly and Seasonal Water Use. ................................. 56

5.1. Measured and Modified Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity. .............. 110

A.I. Routine Test Report and Standard Fertilization Recommendations: Builder's
sand sample I ................................................ 123

A.2. Routine Test Report and Standard Fertilization Recommendations: Builder's
sand sample 2 ................................................ 124

A.3. Routine Test Report and Standard Fertilization Recommendations: Builder's
sand sample 3.................... ............................ 125

A.4. Routine Test Report and Standard Fertilization Recommendations: Astatula
f.s. sample I ........................ ....................... 126

A.5. Routine Test Report and Standard Fertilization Recommendations: Astatula
f.s. sample 2................................................. 127

A.5. Routine Test Report and Standard Fertilization Recommendations: Astatula
f.s. sample 3. .................................. .............. 128

A.7. Routine Test Report and Standard Fertilization Recommendations: Pomona
sand sample I.................. .............................. 129

A.8. Routine Test Report and Standard Fertilization Recommendations: Pomona
sand sample 2. ............................................... 130

A.9. Routine Test Report and Standard Fertilization Recommendations: Pomona
sand sample 3. .............................................. 131

A.10. Micronutrients, Organic Matter, Copper Toxicity Test, and Soluble Salts. .. . 133

C.I. Hydraulic Properties of Arredondo Fine Sand. ...................... 181

C.2. Hydraulic Properties of Rehevot Sand. ............................. 184

vii









C.3. Hydraulic Properties of Adelanto Loam. ............................ 186

C.4. Hydraulic Properties of Pachappa Loam. ............................ 188

C.5. Hydraulic Properties of Yolo Light Clay. ........................... 190














LIST OF FIGURES


figure page

3.1. Field layout of the lysimeter system. ............................... 25

3.2. Side view giving details of an individual lysimeter soil water status monitoring
system .................................................... 27

3.3. Float valve and sump used to control the water table level. .............. 29

3.4. End view of the float valve showing details of the mechanism used to mount
the valve onto a threaded stand. .................................. 29

3.5. Side view of a lysimeter showing the location of the 10 tensiometers. ....... 33

3.6. End view of a lysimeter showing the location of the 10 tensiometers. ........ 33

3.7. Calibration curves of output voltage versus pressure for transducer no. 4 .... 34

3.8. Fluctuations in atmospheric pressure for the week of June 13-19. ......... 35

3.9. Arrangement of the three soils in the lysimeters. ...................... 36

3.10. Soil-moisture retention curves for the three soils used in this study. ....... 42

3.11. Fitted and experimental soil-moisture retention curves for the three soils used
in this study................................................. 43

3.12. Hydraulic conductivity curves for the three soils used in this study. ........ 44

4.1. Partitioning of crop water use in May. ............................ 48

4.2. Partitioning of crop water use in June. ............................ 49

4.3. Weekly crop water use in builder's sand, May, 1988. ................... 50

4.4. Weekly crop water use in builder's sand, June, 1988. ................... 51

4.5. Weekly crop water use in Astatula f.s., May, 1988. ................... 52

4.6. Weekly crop water use in Astatula f.s., June, 1988. ................... 53

4.7. Weekly crop water use in Pomona sand, May, 1988. .................... 54

4.8. Weekly crop water use in Pomona sand, June, 1988. ................... 55

4.9. Cumulative water use for the plants growing in builder's sand ............. 56







4.10. Cumulative water use for the plants growing in Astatula f.s. ............ .57

4.11. Cumulative water use for the plants growing in Pomona sand. ............ 57

4.12. Tensiometer readings versus time on a daily scale. ................... .. 59

4.13. Tensiometer readings versus time on an hourly scale. ................... 59

4.14. Tensiometer readings versus time on a daily scale for the week of June 6. ... 61

4.15. Side view of a lysimeter showing the bed, the water table, and the tensiometer
locations.................................................... 61

4.16. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile at irrigation (kPa). ........... 63

4.17. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile during redistribution (kPa) .... 63

4.18. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile during redistribution (kPa) .... 64

4.19. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile following redistribution (kPa). 64

4.20. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile during extraction (kPa). ........ 65

4.21. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile during extraction (kPa). ........ 65

4.22. Comparison of Penman ET and observed bare soil evaporation from the
lysimeters ................................................... 67

4.23. Comparison of Penman ET and estimated daily bare soil evaporation from the
lysimeters during the final two months of the growing season. ............ 68

5.1. The finite difference grid system used for the one-dimensional model.
Adapted from Stone (1987), p.38. ................................. 70

5.2. Simulated, analytical, and experimental results of steady-state evaporation at
a rate of 0.033 mm/hr from a water table in Yolo light clay. ............. 80

5.3. Simulated results of soil water content profiles for infiltration into Rehevot
sand under constant rain intensity of 12.7 mm/hr. ...................... 81

5.4. Simulated results of soil water content profiles for infiltration into Rehevot
sand under constant rain intensity of 47 mm/hr. ..................... 81

5.5. Simulated and analytical results of steady-state infiltration above a shallow
water table at rates of 0.0 and 1.5 mm/hr. ............................ 83

5.6. Simulated and analytical results of steady-state infiltration above a shallow
water table with a constant extraction rate of 0.42 mm/hr. ................ 83

5.7. Schematic diagram of the finite-difference grid system for the two-
dimensional model of water movement and extraction. ................. 85

5.8. Effect of the relative available soil water and four ET rates on the predicted
soil water extraction rate ........................................ 95

5.9. Simulated distribution of the daily ET over a 24-hr period. .............. 96








5.10. Two-dimensional model simulated results of soil water content profiles for
infiltration into Rehevot sand under constant rain intensity of 12.7 mm/hr. .. 98

5.11. Two-dimensional model simulated results of soil water content profiles for
infiltration into Rehevot sand under constant rain intensity of 47 mm/hr. ... 98

5.12. Lines of constant pressure head, 0 (mm), for parallel buried line sources
1220 mm apart ............................................... 100

5.13. Lines of constant pressure head, b (mm), for a buried line source with a water
table 300 mm below the soil surface................................ 100

5.14. The vertical water content distribution at (0,z) for a line source discharge of
11442 mm2/hr after 0.40 hrs. .................................... 103

5.15. The horizontal water content distribution at (x,210) for a line source discharge
of 11442 mm'/hr after 0.40 hrs................................... 103

5.16. Finite difference mesh for the lysimeter problem. ................... .. 104

5.17. Comparison of Penman ET and estimated daily ET from the lysimeters during
the final two months of the growing season. ........................ 105

5.18. The number of cells contained by each soil compartment. ............... 107

5.19. Distribution of extraction in Astatula f.s. for the week of May 2 ........... 108

5.20. Distribution of extraction in Pomona sand for the week of June 6. ......... 108

5.21. Comparison of simulated and observed pressure heads at a depth of 100 mm
in Astatula f.s. for the week of May 2. ............................. 111

5.22. Comparison of simulated and observed pressure heads at a depth of 200 mm
in Astatula f.s. for the week of May 2 ............................. 112

5.23. Comparison of simulated and observed pressure heads at a depth of 300 mm
in Astatula f.s. for the week of May 2. ............................ 113

5.24. Comparison of simulated and observed pressure heads at a depth of 100 mm
in Pomona sand for the week of June 6. ........................ 114

5.25. Comparison of simulated and observed pressure heads at a depth of 200 mm
in Pomona sand for the week of June 6. ............................ 115

5.26. Comparison of simulated and observed pressure heads at a depth of 300 mm
in Pomona sand for the week of June 6. .......................... 116















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


MEASURED AND SIMULATED SOIL WATER
REDISTRIBUTION AND EXTRACTION PATTERNS OF
DRIP-IRRIGATED TOMATOES ABOVE A SHALLOW WATER TABLE

By

GEORGE VELLIDIS

May, 1989


Chairman: Allen G. Smajstrla
Major Department: Agricultural Engineering


In Florida, the greatest use of fresh water resources is for supplemental irrigation of

agricultural crops. Because of increasing competition for the consumptive use of this water,

there has been a rapid increase in the use of micro irrigation, and in particular, line source

drip irrigation systems which are increasingly being used to irrigate high cash value crops

such as fruits, vegetables, and ornamentals.

Throughout Florida, vegetables are often grown on mulched beds in soils that

commonly require irrigation even if they are subject to naturally occurring high water tables.

The contribution of high water tables to soil water extracted by agricultural crops had not

been accurately determined, especially in combination with line source drip irrigation

systems. This soil-plant-water relationship problem lent itself well to a study conducted in

lysimeters.

A set of six rain-sheltered field lysimeters was developed to simulate these conditions.

Each drainage lysimeter contained a water table regulation device and was irrigated with a







line source drip irrigation system. Soil pressure potential data were collected continuously

using a microcomputer-based tensiometer-pressure transducer data acquisition system.

Experiments were conducted in the lysimeters to measure crop water use and

redistribution and extraction patterns of a tomato crop. The design of the lysimeters

permitted crop water use to be partitioned into irrigation and water table recharge

components. Results indicated that a significant portion of daily plant water use was

provided by the water table. Redistribution and extraction patterns calculated from the soil

water potential measurements showed that very little change in soil water status took place

at horizontal distances of more than 200 mm from the irrigation lateral and at depths greater

than 300 mm.

A two-dimensional finite difference model was developed to simulate water

infiltration, redistribution, and extraction under the above conditions. The simulated results

were in excellent agreement with the field observations. The model can be used to

investigate many different irrigation strategies without the cost normally associated with field

experiments.













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


The greatest use of Florida's fresh water resources is for supplemental irrigation of

agricultural crops. Harrison et al. (1983) reported that 41% of the state's total fresh water use

was for irrigation. In 1987, 728,000 ha were irrigated in Florida by all types of irrigation

systems (Goldstein, 1988).

There are three main methods used for supplemental irrigation in Florida: sprinkler,

seepage, and micro irrigation. In the past 10 years there has been a rapid increase in the use

of micro irrigation in Florida. This is due to energy and water savings offered by these

systems in a time of increasing fuel costs, the ability to apply nutrients and chemicals directly

to the crop, and increasing competition for the consumptive use of available fresh water. Of

special interest are line source drip irrigation systems which are increasingly being used to

irrigate high cash value crops such as fruits, vegetables, and ornamentals.

Line source systems consist of irrigation laterals with closely-spaced discharge points

or emitters. These differ from other micro irrigation systems in that they generate a wetted

band of soil along the lateral, as opposed to a series of nonoverlapping wetted bulbs. When

well designed and managed, and in absence of rainfall, they provide adequate water for crop

growth and minimize losses from percolation below the root zone and evaporation from the

soil surface.

Florida soils commonly require irrigation even if they are subject to naturally

occurring high water tables (0.5-1.5 m below the bed surface). The contribution of high

water tables to soil water extracted by agricultural crops has not been accurately determined,

especially in combination with line source drip irrigation systems. This soil-plant-water

relationship problem lends itself well to studies conducted in lysimeters if the lysimeter

system is designed to adequately approximate the physical system (Chow, 1964).










A sound knowledge of the dynamics of water movement from line sources into the

soil, and of the extraction patterns observed under agricultural crops is needed to minimize

irrigation input while optimizing production returns. The dynamics of interactions must be

studied mathematically using numerical methods becauseanalytical solutions are applicable

to only a few specific cases due to the nonlinear nature of the governing equations. Many

researchers have developed numerical models to use in the study of soil water movement

(Smajstrla, 1982; and Feddes et al., 1978). These models allow many different irrigation

strategies to be investigated without the cost normally associated with field experiments

(Stone, 1987). These models, however, do not address the unique conditions often

encountered in Florida.

The purpose of this research was to obtain a clear understanding of the dynamic soil-

plant-water relationships that occur when agricultural crops are grown on sandy soils,

irrigated by line source drip systems, and subjected to naturally occurring high water tables.

To achieve this goal, three objectives were established:


1. To develop and test a set of field lysimeters in which irrigation studies could

be conducted under high water table conditions.

2. To use real-time monitoring of soil water potentials to record the dynamics

of soil water redistribution and extraction under line source micro irrigation

systems and high water table conditions.

3. To develop a mathematical model that describes the redistribution and

extraction of soil water governed by the above conditions and formulate a

numerical procedure for evaluating the model.













CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Soil Water Potential


In the soil, water moves from points where it has a high energy status to points where

it has a lower one. It is constantly in pursuit of that elusive state known as equilibrium

(Hillel, 1980). Therefore, soil water moves constantly in the direction of decreasing potential

energy. The energy status of water in soil is called the water potential T and is composed

of several components


T= + Vg + ( osm+ gas) (2.1)

where

= matric potential, resulting from capillary and adsorptive forces due to the soil
matrix,

og = gravitational potential, resulting from the gravitational force,

osm = osmotic potential, resulting from osmotic forces, and

gas = pneumatic potential, resulting from changes in ambient gas pressure.

In studies of soil moisture flow, the osmotic and pneumatic potentials can usually be

neglected. The influence of 0oa is low because, in general, solute concentrations in the soil

solution will not significantly affect liquid flow. Pneumatic pressure can be disregarded

because atmospheric pressure remains nearly constant and gas pressures in natural soil

generally do not differ from the atmospheric pressure. Equation (2.1) then reduces to


= + og (2.2)


Soil water potential can be expressed in terms of mass, volume, or weight, and it is

most often expressed as energy per unit weight of soil water. Soil water potential then has









units of length, i.e. mm, which can easily be translated to hydrostatic pressure. For example,

100 mm of water is equivalent to about 1 kPa or 0.01 bar.

The matric potential (f) in unsaturated soil is negative, because work is needed to

withdraw water against the soil matric forces. At the phreatic surface, V=0 mm, while it is

positive below the water table.

The gravitational potential (0 ) at each point is determined by the height of the point

relative to some arbitrary reference level, z. If the origin of z is taken at the soil surface

with z positive in the downward direction, 0==-z mm anywhere below the soil surface.

When dealing only with the sum of matric and gravitational potential expressed in

units of length, the sum is referred to as the hydraulic head, H. Equation (2.2) becomes


H z (mm) (2.3)


with 0 now called the soil moisture pressure head and z the gravitational head. It is

convenient to refer to negative pressure head (0) as a positive suction or tension (h). Thus


h = -0 (2.4)


and the value of h ranges from 0 to 108 mm (Feddes et al., 1978).


Measurement of Soil Water


There are two general reasons for measuring soil water. One is to determine the

moisture content of the soil (0), and the other to determine the magnitude of the matric

potential, or pressure head (t), in the soil.


Soil-Moisture Content Measurements

There are direct or indirect methods to measure 0. The gravimetric method involves

removing a sample by augering into the soil and then determining the moist and dry weights

(Hillel, 1980).









Neutron scattering allows the nondestructive measurement of soil-moisture content.

Although the method is efficient and reliable, it has low spatial resolution. Gamma ray

absorption, on the other hand, allows measurement in very thin layers of soil but is a rather

difficult and erratic procedure.

Another approach involves the use of the electrical resistance of a soil volume to

measure its moisture content. Colman and Hendrix (1949), among others, used electrical

resistance blocks placed in the soil and left to equilibrate with soil moisture to produce a

calibration curve of block resistance versus soil wetness. They found, however, that porous

blocks placed in the soil equilibrate with matric potential rather than soil moisture.

Except for the gravimetric method, the techniques discussed produce indirect

measurements of soil-moisture content and do not lend themselves to automation. Overall,

the measurement of soil wetness does not provide a sufficient description of the state of soil

water (Hillel, 1980). To obtain such a description, matric potential must be measured.


Matric Potential Measurements

To measure matric potential in the field, an instrument known as a tensiometer is

used. The tensiometer consists of a closed tube with a porous ceramic cup on the end which

is inserted into the soil. The cup/tube assembly is filled with deaerated water, sealed, and

allowed to equilibrate with the soil water. Initially, moist soil at atmospheric pressure is

placed in contact with pure water across the ceramic. Solutes then diffuse from the soil

across the ceramic to the tensiometer solution until solute equilibrium is established. At that

time, the solution in the instrument is called the equilibrium dialyzate (Taylor and Ashcroft,

1972). This effectively eliminates any osmotic potential component from consideration. Soil

water, being generally at subatmospheric pressure, exercises a suction which draws out a

certain amount of dialyzate from the rigid and airtight tensiometer, thus causing a drop in

its hydrostatic pressure (Hillel, 1980). A pressure sensing device, usually a vacuum gage, a

mercury manometer, or an electrical transducer, is used to measure the pressure in the

tensiometer tube.









In a tensiometer, the matric potential is not measured directly. Instead, the negative

pressure created within the tensiometer by the matric suction is measured. When the pressure

head is divided by the density of liquid water, the pressure potential of the dialyzate in terms

of energy per mass is obtained. Although the matric potential of the soil is not measured

directly, it is assumed to be equal to the pressure potential of the dialyzate, which is directly

determined (Taylor and Ashcroft, 1972). Tensiometers left in the soil for a long period of

time tend to follow the changes in the matric potential. This potential is also the hydraulic

potential that a plant must exert to extract water from the soil.

The hydraulic resistance of the ceramic cup, the surrounding soil, and the contact

between the cup and soil cause tensiometer readings to lag behind the changes in the soil

matric suction. Lags are also caused by the volume of water needed to be moved through the

cup to register on the measuring device. This lag time can be minimized by the use of a

null-type device or of a transducer-type pressure sensor with rigid tubing, so that practically

no flow of water is required as the tensiometer adjusts (Hillel, 1980).

The useful range of tensiometers is from 0 to -80 kPa. Below -80 kPa, air enters

through the ceramic cup or the water column in the tensiometer breaks, causing the

tensiometer to fail. This measurement limitation is not serious for crops on sandy soils

because 75% or more of the amount of soil water used by plants is depleted within the

tensiometer range.


Automation of Matric Potential Measurements

Early methods of measuring tensiometer pressure heads used mercury manometers.

Later, mechanical vacuum gauges were used. Both methods functioned well for manual

applications but neither was readily automated (Stone, 1987). Recent interest in better

understanding the dynamics of soil water movement has spurred the development of

numerical models that simulate water flow through the soil. The large amounts of data

required to validate and calibrate these models have resulted in the need for an automated

system of recording tensiometer readings on a continuous real-time basis.










Most recent efforts have focused on using a transducer-type pressure sensor to read

the pressure head. Marthaler et al. (1983) used a pressure transducer to read individual

tensiometers. The upper end of the tensiometer was closed off with septum stoppers to

provide an airtight seal. A needle connected to a pressure transducer was manually inserted

through the septum into a pocket of entrapped air in the tensiometer and the pressure

transducer output was obtained immediately. However, since the transducer had to be moved

manually from tensiometer to tensiometer, this was not an automated system.

Thomson et al. (1982) used individual pressure transducers on tensiometers with all

air purged from the system to monitor matric potentials. Thus, they were able to avoid lag

times associated with air pockets in the tensiometers. They read the pressure transducers by

electronically switching from one to another.

Stone et al. (1985) developed a low-cost microcomputer-based data acquisition system

for continuous pressure head measurements. Their system consisted of tensiometer-mounted

pressure transducers, a multiplexing system, an analog-to-digital converter, and a portable

microcomputer. The system components were calibrated independently and the assembled

data acquisition system was evaluated under laboratory and field conditions. They achieved

excellent agreement between pressure heads read with the data acquisition system and those

read manually using mercury manometers. Agreement was generally within 0.47 kPa. The

system was tested under various field conditions and proved to be reliable and accurate.

Although the system developed by Stone et al. (1985) was inexpensive and reliable,

it involved developing most of the system components. In the time since then, numerous data

acquisition and control devices have become commercially available. These devices receive

an analog signal from the instruments, convert the signal to digital form, and pass it on to

a microcomputer. In addition, most of the devices have up to 32 channels available for data

input. This enhanced ability allows a powerful microcomputer based data acquisition system

for continuous soil water pressure measurement to be assembled from commercially available

instruments.









Soil Hydraulic Properties


Solution of unsaturated flow problems requires the predetermination of the soil

hydraulic properties, namely, the relationship between the pressure head, i, and the soil-

moisture content, 0, and the dependence of the hydraulic conductivity, K, on 0 or 0. The

most important single factor limiting the successful application of unsaturated flow theory

to actual field problems is the lack of information on the parameters entering the governing

flow equations (van Genuchten, 1980).


Soil-Moisture Retention Curve

The amount of water retained in the unsaturated zone at equilibrium is a function of

the sizes and volumes of the water-filled pores. It is also, therefore, a function of the matric

forces. This function can be determined experimentally, and is represented graphically by

a curve known as the soil-moisture retention curve (Childs, 1940).

The soil-moisture retention curve is a plot of pressure head (V) versus soil-moisture

content (6) and is obtained by desorption or sorption. The equilibrium moisture content at

a given 0 is greater in desorption (drying) than in sorption (wetting) (Hillel, 1980). This

phenomenon is referred to as hysteresis. Poulovassilis (1962) presented a rigorous

mathematical description of hysteresis. In many studies hysteresis is not considered since a

soil's spatial variability is unknown and often exceeds the influence of hysteresis (Feddes et

al., 1978). Desorption curves are also much easier to develop and are therefore typically used

to describe the soil-moisture retention curve.

The desorption curve is usually determined by using a gas pressure extractor which

provides a reliable means of removing soil moisture from soil samples, under controlled

conditions, throughout the whole plant growth range.


Hydraulic Conductivity Curve

Hydraulic conductivity is defined as the ratio of the flux, q, to the hydraulic gradient,

or the slope of the flux versus gradient curve (Hillel, 1980). For saturated flow, the total soil






9

pore space is available for water flow. With unsaturated flow, however, part of the pores are

filled with air. Therefore, the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K, is smaller than the

saturated hydraulic conductivity, K,. So for unsaturated soils, K is not constant but depends

on the soil moisture content 0 or the pressure head 0 (Feddes et al., 1978).

K = f(0) or K = f(V) (2.5)


Direct measurement of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is desirable but difficult

to obtain because experimental determination is time-consuming and costly, relationships

between K, 0, and 6 are hysteretic and dependent upon previous wetting and drying histories,

and soil variability is such that an enormous amount of data would be required to represent

the hydraulic conductivity accurately (Mualem, 1986). To replace the missing information,

several models have been developed to compute hydraulic conductivity. Mualem (1986)

presented a review of several models.

One approach that has been successful involves calculating the unsaturated

conductivity from the more easily measured soil-moisture retention curve. The Millington-

Quirk method (Millington and Quirk, 1971) has been applied with good results by several

researchers including Green and Corey (1971). The method's disadvantage is that it produces

output in tabular form which is difficult to use when dealing with nonhomogeneous, multi-

dimensional, unsaturated flow problems (van Genuchten, 1980).

Brooks and Corey (1966) developed a closed-form analytical expression for predicting

unsaturated hydraulic conductivity whose predictions compared favorably with experimental

results. However, a discontinuity which prevented rapid convergence in numerical

simulations of unsaturated flow problems was encountered in their soil-moisture retention

and hydraulic conductivity curves.

Mualem (1976) derived a simple integral formula from which closed form analytical

solutions for predicting the hydraulic conductivity were derived, provided suitable equations

for the soil-moisture retention curves were known. Van Genuchten (1980) derived such

closed-form analytical solutions. The conductivity models he developed contained three









independent parameters which were obtained by matching a proposed soil-moisture retention

function to experimental data. Agreement was excellent between observed and predicted

conductivity curves for lighter soils such as sands and loams but higher conductivity values

were seriously underpredicted for a clay soil.

The soil-moisture content as a function of the pressure head is given by

van Genuchten (1980) as


(9, 0)
S= ,O + (2.6)
I1 + (o lI )"nJm


where

0, = saturated soil-moisture content,

Or = residual soil-moisture content,

10 = absolute value of the pressure head,

a, n = parameters to be determined, and

m = 1 I/n. (2.7)


Equation (2.6) contains four independent variables (0,, 0r, a, and n), which must be

obtained from observed soil-moisture retention data. The most available of the four is 0,,

which is easily determined experimentally. The residual water content, 0r, may be measured

experimentally by determining the soil-moisture content on very dry soil. It is defined as

the low end soil-moisture content for which the gradient (dB/dt) becomes zero, excluding

the region near 0,, which also has a zero gradient (van Genuchten, 1980). The remaining

parameters, a and n, are determined by differentiating equation (2.6) to obtain


dO -am(0, 0,) 1 (2.8
--- \ (2.8)
d ]-m +(a J L +(a )


where the right hand side is expressed in terms of 0. Further substitutions solve for a, n, and

m. A step by step procedure was provided by van Genuchten (1980).







II

The hydraulic conductivity was expressed in terms of pressure head by the following

expression


( -(alt I I)"'- + (al| I )~- 2
K(t) = K, (2.9)
[I +(all )"]m/2


where all variables are as defined for equation (2.6).


Water Flow in Unsaturated Soils


The general equations governing unsaturated flow in porous media are Darcy's law

and the continuity of flow equation. Richards (1931) linked the two and presented a

combined flow equation which he described as the general partial differential equation of soil

water transfer.

Darcy's law for the flow of water in unsaturated porous media (Darcy, 1856),

including soils, can be expressed as


q = -K(b)VH (2.10)


where

q = density flux or volume of water passing through a unit cross-sectional area per
unit time,

K = unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil as a function of 0,

b = soil moisture pressure head,

V = differential operator, and

H = hydraulic head.


The continuity of flow equation according to Freeze and Cherry (1979) can be

expressed as


80
Vq S (2.11)
at

where









0 = soil-moisture content,

t =time, and

S = a sink or source term.

The sink term is used to represent the loss or gain of water from the soil by root extraction

or by application of irrigation water.

Substitution of equation (2.10) into the continuity equation yields the combined flow

equation or the Richards equation which can be expressed as

80
-- -V[ K(O) VH]- S() (2.12)
Bt

Full expansion of equation (2.12) in two dimensions yields the flow equation in terms

of hydraulic head


--= K(4)- + K()- I- S(4) (2.13)
at ax L ax 8z 8z

where x is the horizontal dimension and z is the vertical dimension with z positive in the

downward direction.

Substitution of equation (2.3) into equation (2.13) yields the pressure head form of

the flow equation


-= -- K() +- K()- S() (2.14)
at ax ax az zL

Differentiating the internal terms of equation (2.14) with respect to x and z

accordingly yields

86 8 a 8( ) 8 [ f8(4) 11
-=- K()- +- K() -S(4) (2.15)
at ax L x J a I az


Childs (1957) used a different approach to obtain the same general flow equation.









Equation (2.15) is complicated by the appearance of two dependent variables 0 and

V. Rubin (1966) discussed three ways of reducing the equation to a single dependent variable,

among which was the O-based approach which was selected for this study. This technique

involves modifying equation (2.15) by introducing the specific water capacity, C, defined by

dO
C =-- (2.16)
do

which was discussed in detail by Klute (1965). Because hysteresis is not included, is

considered a single-value function of 0 and a normal instead of a partial derivative notation

is used in equation (2.16) (Feddes et al., 1978).

Using the chain rule of calculus

80 dO a8
(2.17)
at d 8at

and substituting equation (2.16) into (2.17) yields


8a 84
--= C-- (2.18)
8t at


which in turn is substituted into equation (2.15) to produce the final form of the general flow

equation, commonly known as the two dimensional form of the Richards equation.


84 a [ 8(a) 8(0) )I
C()- K()- +- K(') 1 -S) (2.19)
a1 8x L x zL tz

Written in this form, the flow equation is easier to solve and provides the basis for

predicting soil water movement in saturated and unsaturated soils. The equation is a

nonlinear, parabolic, second order, partial differential equation (PDE). It is nonlinear because

the parameters K(4), C(Q), and S(O) depend on the solution of O(x,z,t). Nonlinearity causes

problems in the equation's solution and analytical solutions are complex and known for special









cases only (e.g., Gilley and Allred, 1974; Warrick et al., 1979). The nonlinearity of equation

(2.19) and the typical variable boundary conditions associated with it have dictated the use

of numerical methods to solve practical field problems of soil-plant-water relationships

(Stone, 1987).


Numerical Solutions

The finite difference method is the numerical technique most commonly used to solve

the Richards equation. Finite differences are expedient because solutions are obtained by

working directly with the governing differential equations, and they apply to specific flow

geometries with specific mesh spacings. Therefore, finite differences lend themselves well

to the solution of soil-plant-water relationship problems in regularly shaped lysimeters.

Finite difference formulations may be solved explicitly or implicitly. Although the

implicit approach is more complicated, it is preferable because it offers better stability and

convergence. It also permits relatively larger time steps, thus allowing longer simulation

periods.

The Richards equation has been successfully solved for one-dimensional flow by

many researchers. Haverkamp et al. (1977) reviewed six numerical models of one-

dimensional infiltration solved using both the water content based equation and the pressure

head based equation. Each model employed different discretization techniques to

approximate the nonlinear infiltration equation. They found that implicit models which

solved the pressure head based infiltration equation had the widest range of applicability for

predicting water movement in saturated or unsaturated soil.

Feddes et al. (1978) developed a one-dimensional implicit model that simulated

infiltration and redistribution under high water table conditions. Plant growth and root

extraction were also simulated. Field lysimeters were used to collect data for model

calibration and special attention was paid to the influence of the groundwater table on the

amount of water available for transpiration of red cabbage on sticky clay.







15

The most popular implicit procedure used in solving the two-dimensional form of the

Richards equation has been the alternating direction implicit (ADI) method. Rubin (1968)

developed a two-dimensional numerical model of transient water flow in unsaturated and

partly unsaturated soils which utilized an ADI scheme. He studied horizontal infiltration and

ditch drainage with the numerical model.

Hornberger et al. (1969) developed a model of transient water movement in a

composite soil moisture ground water system. The model was used to study two-dimensional

flow in response to a falling water table and used the Gauss-Sidel iterative method to solve

the flow equations.

Amerman (1976) developed a computational scheme for solving the steady-state, two-

dimensional form of the Richards equation using the successive overrelaxation (SOR) finite

difference method. The model was developed using subsectioning which allowed application

of the model, without internal modification, to a wide range of geometric shapes, hydraulic

boundary conditions, and soil distributions.

Perrens and Watson (1977) studied a two-dimensional infiltration-redistribution

sequence in which the surface flux was spatially nonuniform. They found that an ADI

method described the flow process satisfactorily. Their program incorporated an

interpolation-type hysteresis model and produced two-dimensional profile distributions of

water content and pressure head.

Brandt et al. (1971) considered a plane flow and a cylindrical flow model in a study

of two-dimensional transient infiltration from a trickle source. The water flow equation was

solved numerically by an approach that combined the noniterative ADI procedure with

Newton's iterative method. The numerical results compared favorably with data from the

literature and indicated that the method was reliable and could be used with confidence.


Infiltration From a Line Source

A special two-dimensional water flow problem is infiltration from a line source.

Researchers have presented several analytical and numerical solutions to this problem. Raats









(1970) was one of the earliest investigators to study steady infiltration from an array of

equally spaced line sources or furrows at the surface of a semi-infinite soil profile. He used

the steady-state assumption and the Kirchhoff transformation to obtain a straightforward

analytical solution. He produced explicit expressions for the stream function, the flux, the

matric flux potential, the pressure head, and the total head.

In a similar steady-state study, Zachmann and Thomas (1973) developed equations

which can be used in the design of subsurface irrigation systems that lie in a horizontal plane

and are parallel and equally spaced. The analytical solution described the flow from the line

sources in the presence of uniform infiltration or evaporation at the soil surface.

Warrick and Lomen (1977) developed a two-dimensional analytical solution of the

linearized flow equation for a buried line source with an underlying constant potential

surface. Their geometry was appropriate for describing flow from a trickle or subsurface

irrigation system of porous pipe, or emitters, spaced closely in a line above a shallow water

table or in a lysimeter. They examined only the steady-state case and attained linearization

by assuming that the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity was exponentially related to the

pressure head. Warrick et al. (1979) further enhanced the model by adding a one-dimensional

extraction term. Other analytical solutions of infiltration from a line source were provided

by Gilley and Allred (1974), Lomen and Warrick (1974), and Thomas et al. (1974).

Fewer studies have provided numerical solutions to the line source problem. Oron

(1981) linearized the steady-state nonlinear equation and then solved it numerically. His

model included a continuous sink function which simulated water uptake by roots. Oron's

results satisfactorily simulated the flow characteristics in the soil and were validated by

experimental data.

Ragab et al. (1984) used a simulation model based on the matric flux potential concept

to describe two-dimensional infiltration into sand from a line source. The model showed

considerable stability with varying grid sizes and flow rates. Their simulated wetting patterns

indicated close agreement with published experimental data, especially under higher flow

rates.









An extensive literature review has shown that many researchers have investigated

infiltration from line sources. Most however, limited their studies to the solution of the

linearized, steady-state form of the flow equation. Those that solved for transient, two-

dimensional infiltration from line sources did not include an extraction term to simulate

water uptake by plants. Furthermore, the line source problem has not been investigated

under high water table conditions. A general model simulating transient infiltration and

extraction under line sources is lacking.


Water Extraction by Plant Roots


Hamon (1966) calculated that 70% of the 750 mm average annual precipitation of the

contiguous United States is lost to evaporation and transpiration. Penman (1970) estimated

that 2000 Mg of water must be extracted from the soil in order to produce 20 Mg of fresh

weight of a crop. These observations indicate that the soil-plant-atmosphere pathway is a

major component of the subsurface hydrologic system. Any serious attempt to model the

pathway requires an understanding of the dynamics of soil moisture depletion by plants.

Most models of soil extraction by plant roots use the Ohm's law analogy which was

originally introduced by Gradmann (1928) and enhanced by van den Honert (1948). The

analogy suggests that the driving force for water uptake is the effective potential gradient

between water in the plant and water in the soil. The resistance term is a summation of the

hydraulic resistances of the soil as well as the root cortex and xylem along the flow path

(Belmans et al., 1979). In simulating water extraction by plant roots, two methods have been

used: the microscopic and the macroscopic approach.

A microscopic study examines the flow process in the vicinity of a single root. The

root may be considered as a cylindrical sink of infinite length, uniform radius, and uniform

water absorbing properties. The soil moisture flow equation is written in cylindrical

coordinates and solved with appropriate boundary conditions at the root surface and at some

distance rm, from the root (Molz and Remson, 1970). Moisture flux, moisture content, or

a combination of both, may be specified as a boundary condition at the root surface. Gardner









(1960; 1964) developed one of the earliest detailed quantitative models of this type. Other

microscopic studies were conducted by Molz et al. (1968), Newman (1969), Whisler et al.

(1970), and Steinhardt et al. (1982).

As discussed by Molz and Remson (1970), microscopic models are impractical because

flow to each individual rootlet of a complete root system must be considered. Furthermore,

the entire root system is not uniformly permeable to water and its geometry is time

dependent. As a result, most extraction functions have been developed using a macroscopic

approach (Molz, 1981).

In the macroscopic approach, the flow to individual roots is disregarded and the entire

root system is assumed to extract moisture from each differential volume, or cell, of the root

zone at some rate S. At a given cell, the quantity S is interpreted as an extraction rate that

may be a function of space, time, moisture content, or a combination of these variables

(Slack, 1975). The total extraction rate is the summation of the water flow rates from each

soil cell. In the soil moisture flow equations, the extraction rate is represented as a sink or

a negative source term, S, and is simply added to the continuity equation (see equation 2.11).

Boundary conditions are specific at boundaries of the composite soil-plant system such as the

soil surface and the water table, and they do not involve the actual roots (Molz and Remson,

1970).

Gardner and Ehlig (1962) used the Ohm's law analogy to present a macroscopic

extraction function of the form



S = pn (2.20)
Ra01 + Rroot.

where

S = the extraction function or the volume of water taken up by the roots per unit
bulk volume of soil in unit time,

fsili ,plant = water potentials in the soil and plant respectively, and
Roil, Ro,,, = the corresponding hydraulic resistances.









They conducted greenhouse experiments and found that the impedance to water movement

in the soil is greater than the impedance to water movement into plant roots. Their

experimental results were consistent with the uptake equation.

Molz and Remson (1970) developed a one-dimensional model which used a

macroscopic extraction term to describe moisture removal from soil by the roots of

transpiring plants. The extraction rate was given by


R(z)D(0)
S(z,O) = T (2.21)

JR(z)D(0)dz


where

T = transpiration rate per unit area,

R(z) = effective root density,

D(O) = diffusivity, and

v = root depth.


A numerical procedure based on the Douglas-Jones predictor-corrector method was used to

solve the model. Solutions compared with experimental data indicated that the extraction

term was computationally and physically feasible.

Belmans et al. (1979) used the extraction term proposed by Gardner and Ehlig

(equation 2.20) in a mechanistic simulation model describing the process of soil moisture

extraction by root systems. They conducted experiments to test the model's validity and

found that root resistance was the dominant resistance term through most of the soil moisture

availability range. The increase in soil hydraulic resistance resulting from soil moisture

extraction did not become significant relative to root resistance until the soil moisture reserve

was substantially depleted.

Nimah and Hanks (1973a) developed a model for estimating soil water, plant, and

atmospheric interrelations. Their one-dimensional model predicted water content profiles,









root extraction, and root water potential under field conditions. It used a root extraction

term of the form


[Hot + (1.05z) h(z,t) s(z,t)] RDF(z)K(0)
S(z,t) = (2.22)
AxAz


where

Hroot = the effective water potential in the root at the soil surface,

h = soil matric potential,

s = osmotic potential,

RDF = proportion of total active roots in depth increment Az,

K hydraulic conductivity, and

Ax = distance between the plant roots at the point where h and s are measured.


The model predicted significant changes in root extraction due to variations in

pressure head-water content relations and root depth. A field test of the model (Nimah and

Hanks, 1973b) with an alfalfa crop provided best agreement between predicted and computed

values 48 hours after water addition. Poorest agreement was found immediately following

irrigation.

Feddes et al. (1976) defined the extraction term in two different ways. The first

extraction term was dependent on the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, the difference in

pressure head between the soil and the root-soil interface, and a root effectiveness function.

The second term was defined as a function of soil water content. The governing partial

differential equations were solved by a finite difference and a finite element approach, and

the computed values were verified against field measurements. Only slight discrepancies

between the two numerical methods were found and these were attributed to the different

manner in which they handle boundary conditions and water uptake by roots. Agreement

between measured and computed values ranged from excellent to satisfactory.









Slack et al. (1977) developed a mathematical model of water extraction by plant roots

as a function of leaf and soil water movement and water uptake. A two-dimensional radial

flow model was used to describe water movement and estimate transpiration from corn grown

in a controlled environment under soil drying conditions. A microscopic and a macroscopic

approach was used to produce a combined extraction model which predicted daily

transpiration adequately for the period modeled.

Feddes et al. (1978) developed an implicit finite difference model to describe water

flow and extraction in a non-homogenous profile under the influence of groundwater. Their

extraction term was considered to be a function of the soil moisture pressure head, ti. The

extraction rate was held at a maximum level if was above a set limit, 0. When the pressure

head fell below 0i, water uptake decreased linearly with / until the wilting point, #3, was

reached. Below 0i water uptake by roots was set at zero. The extraction term between iz and

0i was defined by



S() = Sma (2.23)
S- 3

where

Sma = the maximum possible transpiration rate divided by the effective rooting
depth.


The model yielded satisfactory results in predicting both cumulative transpiration and

distribution of soil moisture content with depth.

Tollner and Molz (1983) developed a physically based extraction function for use in

the general flow equation. The function assumes that water uptake per unit volume of soil

is proportional to the product of contact length per unit soil volume, root permeability per

unit length, and water potential difference between soil and root xylem potential. A factor

which accounts for reduced root-soil-water contact as water is removed was included in the

extraction term. Model predictions compared favorably with experimental results from the

literature.









Studies conducted by Denmead and Shaw (1962) and Ritchie (1973) with field crops

showed that during periods of high potential evapotranspiration (ET) demand, actual ET was

considerably less than the potential rate even though the available soil water was considered

adequate. They also observed that during periods of low potential ET demand actual ET

equaled potential rates, even down to very low soil water contents.

Smajstrla (1982) developed an extraction function that was consistent with these

observations. His function was based on potential extraction rate and soil water status and

was defined as


S = TpR (T/CR) (2.24)

where

Tp = potential transpiration rate, and

C = a calibration constant.

R was defined as the relative available soil water content and was given mathematically by



R (2.25)
8t. 8 p

where

S= soil water content,

0P, = soil water content at the wilting point, and

re = soil water content at field capacity.


The model was calibrated using the rate of soil water content change observed during

lysimeter field experiments with soybeans. The function permits a rapid rate of soil water

extraction when soil water is readily available. As the water is depleted, the extraction rate

declines logarithmically. Extraction is limited during periods of high potential ET and is

allowed to recover to near potential rates during periods of low potential ET. The function

limits extraction to very low rates as the permanent wilting point is approached.









Stone (1987) modified Smajstrla's extraction term to include a root distribution

function and substituted potential transpiration (Tp) with actual ET, thus eliminating the

calibration constant. The extraction term was used with success in a two-dimensional model

simulating extraction patterns under agricultural crops.

Lvsimetrv


Lysimeters have been used for determining soil-plant-water relationships for many

years. A review of lysimetry was published by Aboukhaled et al. (1982). Lysimeters can

generally be described as weighing and nonweighing (or drainage) types whose advantages

and disadvantages were discussed by Smajstria (1985). He found that weighing lysimeters

are more costly and difficult to maintain because of requirements for service and calibration.

The tanks of weighing lysimeters must also be constructed with sufficient mechanical strength

to support the soil profile without deformation and be supported by expensive load cells.

They are ideally suited to studies in which hourly or daily soil water budgets are required.

Drainage lysimeters are cheaper to construct because the surrounding soil can be used

to support the tanks (Aboukhaled et al., 1982). They are used for studies in which weekly

or monthly soil water budgets are of interest because instrumentation to measure soil water

status is not sufficiently accurate. Smajstrla (1985) developed a set of drainage-type field

lysimeters for water management studies on deep sandy soils for Florida humid climatic

conditions.

Feddes et al. (1978) studied the influence of the groundwater table on the amount of

water available for transpiration of red cabbage on sticky clay with a drainage-type field

lysimeter. Their system was designed to continuously maintain the water table in the

lysimeter at approximately the same depth as it was in the surrounding field. Drainage-type

lysimeters with water table controls for Florida conditions were described by

Clayton et al. (1942), Speir (1962), and Shih et al. (1977).














CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE


The Field Lysimeter System


A field lysimeter system was constructed to study soil water redistribution and

extraction patterns of three different soil profiles irrigated by a line source under the

influence of a shallow water table. The system consisted of 6 rain-sheltered drainage-type

lysimeters arranged in tandem to simulate row-crop conditions. Rain shelters were used to

eliminate unwanted rainfall from the lysimeters during water management studies

(Figure 3.1). Soil water status data were collected with a microcomputer-based data

acquisition system which consisted of tensiometer-mounted pressure transducers, a data

acquisition and control device, and a portable microcomputer.


Lvsimeter Construction

Each of the six lysimeters constructed for this facility provided a rectangular cross

section of 0.7 m2 and an effective surface production area of I m2. Their profiles were

0.75 m deep.

The lysimeters were built from commercially available galvanized steel

3 x 0.9 x 0.75 m water troughs. Each trough was partitioned to create two lysimeters. The

partitions were machined from sheets of aluminum and bonded into the troughs with an

epoxy-resin-based metal filler. The strength and water tightness of each bond was tested by

filling one of the lysimeters in each trough with water while leaving the other empty and

inspecting for leaks. The aluminum was then covered with a primer, an epoxy-based paint,

and an asphalt-based paint to prevent corrosion.

The lysimeters were installed at the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Irrigation

Research and Education Park at Gainesville, Florida. A trench was excavated to a depth of







25
z0
LUHI

FF
00U)
0 UL







ii 4)



I, C) W
z~J 0



~, m
LL=











LUi IJi Z 0 IC

LrC j II
D>II C-
m0 0 w <)






i t LO l0
Ul 31: IM


II <





2 I 0
00
ma
U) m 0 0 0 '1
0 0
ogD I L ) 0





oo CI I-

III
I 2M
Fr L U




O LU I
LiL
/ 0


0 0t
0/ 1/7 L- I>
llz
LLCl ;
iLwu Li
M )L


m n 0
cf)










0.5 m with a backhoe and the remaining 0.25 m were excavated by hand to ensure that the

bottom surface of the trench was level. A thin layer of coarse builder's sand was placed in

the bottom of each trench, leveled, and tamped to ensure that the bottoms of the lysimeters

were completely supported. The lysimeters were installed in tandem, with a 0.3 m spacing

between troughs. A carpenter's level was used to ensure that they were level in order to

avoid nonuniform water table heights within the lysimeters. A standpipe and a drainage/

distribution system were placed in each of the lysimeters, and a 50 mm layer of builder's

sand was laid over the distribution systems to facilitate drainage and water table control. Soil

was backfilled around the lysimeters while soil profiles were simultaneously reconstructed

in the lysimeters by hand packing to prevent the shapes of the lysimeters from distorting

while they were being filled.

Three different soils were used to fill the lysimeters, with each of the soils occupying

a pair of lysimeters. Because Florida agricultural soils are single-grained fine sands, the soils

used in the lysimeters were chosen accordingly and further selected to provide high,

intermediate, and low water-holding capacities. The soils used were Pomona sand, Astatula

fine sand, and Builder's sand, respectively.

Profile reconstruction. Handpacking was used to assure that the individual soil

profiles were as homogeneous as possible (Smajstrla, 1985). Lysimeter profiles were

reconstructed in approximately 50 mm thick layers by a continual process of filling, tamping,

and raking between layers.

To simulate row crop conditions, beds were formed within the lysimeters. One 0.9 m

long trapezoidal bed ran across the width of each lysimeter as illustrated in Figures 3.1 and

3.2. The soil profiles were reconstructed uniformly for the first 450 mm and then the beds

were shaped. Each bed was 1.0 m wide at its base, 300 mm wide on top, 300 mm tall, and

side slope ratios were 3:2. Half the height of the bed (150 mm) protruded above the lip of

the lysimeter. To contain the ends of the beds, sheets of galvanized steel, cut into trapezoidal

shape, were pushed into the soil profile along the inner edges of the lysimeters. The

irrigation laterals were then placed and the beds covered with black plastic mulch.









Lvsimeter water table control. A system was designed to provide accurate regulation

of the water table within the lysimeters. The design consisted of a float valve and a sump

which were located in a standpipe.

The standpipes were constructed by cutting a 250 mm diameter polyvinyl chloride

(PVC) pipe into lengths of 650 mm. Holes (3 mm) were drilled into the bottom 100 mm of

each pipe to facilitate the flow of water. Very fine mesh nylon screen was used to cover the

holes and prevent soil particle loss. The standpipes were then glued to the bottom of the

lysimeters in an upright position (Figure 3.2). Lids were manufactured to keep out debris and

insects.

Attached to the standpipe was a distribution system (Figures 3.1 and 3.2) to facilitate

the movement of water along the bottom of the lysimeter. PVC pipe elbows were used to

connect lengths of 26 mm well screen to form a rectangular distribution system. One corner

of the distribution system led into the standpipe. On the opposite end of the distribution

system, a reducing elbow was used to install a vertical 16 mm PVC pipe and a gas jet which

allowed water to be extracted to the surface by vacuum. The gas jet was used for rapidly

extracting water or for lowering the water table below the level allowed by the sump.

The water table in each lysimeter was recharged from the float valve (Figure 3.3)

which consisted of a water feeder valve regulated by a float attached to the valve lever arm.

A coupling and slip sleeve were used to connect 6.4 mm diameter copper tubing to the float

valve. Tygon tubing was slipped over the copper tubing and led to the top of the standpipe.

From there, 10 mm polyethylene (PE) tubing led to a 40 L water supply tank which provided

the positive head required by the float valve. Two nuts, welded together, were used to mount

the float valve onto a threaded stand and permitted fine adjustment of the water levels

(Figure 3.4). A minimum level of 20 mm was required for the float valve to operate properly.

Once calibrated, the float valve allowed the water level to be adjusted to within 3 mm of the

desired depth setting. The volume of water added to each water table through a float valve

was determined by measuring the volume of water depleted from the corresponding water

tank. To accurately measure depletions, the water table tanks were replenished with the use

of a graduated cylinder.


































Figure 3.3. Float valve and sump used to control the water table level.


Figure 3.4. End view of the float valve showing details of the mechanism
used to mount the valve onto a threaded stand.









The sumps were constructed to eliminate fluctuations in the water table caused by

percolating irrigation water. Any water draining into the sumps was extracted by vacuum

to individual drain traps. The sumps were made by gluing a bottom to one end of a 30 mm

length of 50 mm PVC pipe. Each sump was then attached to the lysimeter bottom within the

standpipe (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). Vacuum tubing, which led to individual drain traps, was

connected to the sumps with a hose barb.

A portable drain trap was constructed for each lysimeter from 100 mm PVC pipe.

PVC end-cups were then glued on a 600 mm length of pipe to form a cylindrical tank with

a capacity of approximately 5 L. A graduated cylinder was used to accurately measure the

volumes of water collected in the drain trap.

The vacuum system consisted of a 250 L/min vacuum pump, a 300 L vacuum tank,

a regulator to start and stop the vacuum pump, and vacuum control valves to permit the

desired vacuum to be set.

Irrigation system. The irrigation system was a low flow, manually operated line

source drip irrigation system. Each lysimeter was irrigated by a separate lateral, which was

supplied from a 60 L water tank. The tank, placed on a platform, provided the positive head

required by the irrigation system. Laterals were placed along the centerlines of each bed

(Figures. 3.1 and 3.2). Twelve drip emitters, closely spaced at 75 mm, in order to simulate

a line source, were installed on each lateral. Spot Vortex emitters were used with flow rates

of 2.4 L/hr or 32 L/hr per m lateral length. To accurately measure the irrigation volumes,

a graduated cylinder was used to add water to the irrigation tanks.

Rain shelter. An automated rain shelter was used to cover the lysimeters in the event

of rainfall. The system consisted of a shelter mounted on a rail system, electric motors and

controls, and a rainfall detector and switch to activate the motors. The shelter was part of

a preexisting lysimeter system (Smajstria, 1985).








The Data Acquisition System

A microcomputer-based data acquisition system for continuous soil water potential

measurements was developed. The system consisted of tensiometer-mounted pressure

transducers, a Keithley System 570 work station data acquisition and control device, and a

Zenith 161 portable microcomputer.

Pressure transducers were mounted on Model S Irrometer tensiometers by drilling

3 mm holes into the tensiometer reservoirs opposite the vacuum gage ports. The pressure

transducers used were Micro Switch model 141PC15D transducers which measure pressures

from 0 to -100 kPa. Each transducer produced an analog output of I to 6 volts which was

proportional to the vacuum exerted on a membrane in the transducer. One side of the

membrane was in contact with the tensiometer water while the other side was open to the

atmosphere. As pressure on the water changed, the membrane deformed proportionally, and

the voltage across the membrane changed. The pressure transducers required an 8-volt direct

current (VDC) power supply at 8 mA each. These transducers were used because they were

shown to be linear, temperature compensating, and adaptable to field use (Stone et al., 1985).

The System 570 data acquisition system had provisions for a maximum of 32 single-

ended input channels. To provide flexibility, 12 conductor signal cable was installed, thereby

providing 12 available signal leads for each pair of lysimeters. The signal cable was 22

American Wire Gage (AWG) with 6 pairs of stranded chrome conductors, each pair shielded

to prevent induced voltage errors. A 12-gage power supply cable was installed to provide

power to a junction box for each pair of lysimeters.

The microcomputer and the data acquisition system were housed in an air conditioned

instrumentation building about 60 m from the lysimeters. Between the instrumentation

building and the junction boxes, 3 signal cables and 3 power supply cables were buried in

a 75 mm PVC pipe. One data cable and one power supply cable led into each junction box

and a three conductor cable connected each transducer to its junction box. Two of the

conductors were used for power supply, while the third carried the signal from the

transducer.










Three of the 6 lysimeters were instrumented with 10 tensiometers per lysimeter,

engaging 30 channels (Figure 3.1). One channel was used to monitor atmospheric pressure

and the remaining channel was used as a backup. In order to provide a complete description

of the soil profile in the lysimeter, the 10 tensiometers in each of the instrumented lysimeters

were installed at depths and distributions as follows: 3 tensiometers were installed at each

of 3 depths, 100 mm, 200 mm, 300 mm, and at distances of 50 mm, 150 mm, and 250 mm

from the lateral. One tensiometer was installed at a depth of 500 mm (Figures 3.5 and 3.6).

The Keithley System 570 data acquisition and control device was the interface

between the microcomputer and the tensiometer pressure transducers. It consisted of a

chassis/mother board and an interface card for the microcomputer. The mother board had

individually numbered screw terminals to which the pressure transducer data cables were

attached.

The System 570 was supported by the Soft500 software package which is an extension

of Advanced BASIC and provided foreground/background architecture, multitasking, array

management, memory management, disk access and storage, and a library of input and output

commands accessible directly from BASIC. Real time analog measurement was accomplished

by writing a Basic program incorporating Soft500 commands.

Data Acquisition System Operation. The data acquisition system permitted soil matric

potentials to be monitored nearly continuously. Data from the 30 tensiometer-pressure

transducers were collected at one minute intervals and averaged over a 10-minute period.

The average soil matric potential of each tensiometer for that period and the corresponding

time were saved to disk. The 320 kbyte 5 1/4 inch floppy disks used for storage of the soil

water potential data permitted 7 days of continuous data collection.

Instrument calibration. The 30 pressure transducers were individually calibrated to

analyze their response characteristics. Transducer outputs were measured at decreasing

pressures from 0 to -40 kPa and individual transducer calibration curves were produced.

Regression analysis of the data indicated that the calibration curves were linear with R2

values of 1.000.








RADIAL DISTANCE FROM DRIP LATERAL (mm) 3

250 150 50 0 150 300






/ -200 \
I/ \

...._ g g -300 -.




-500
E


Figure 3.5. Side view of a lysimeter showing the location of the
10 tensiometers.


100-


200-


S300-
E




S500
-


SPACING ALONG BED Cmm3

150 450


750 900


f5u


Figure 3.6. End view of a lysimeter showing the location of the
10 tensiometers.


------------------- ---





*


I










Calibration curves of the assembled tensiometer-pressure transducer systems were also

developed to take into account the effect of the hanging tensiometer column on the

transducer output. The curves were developed by exerting a known vacuum on the

tensiometer ceramic cups and reading the transducer outputs. The curves again proved to

be linear with R2 values ranging from 1.000 to 0.998. The net effect of the hanging column

was to shift the output voltage of the transducer upwards by a an amount directly

proportional to the column length. Figure 3.7 shows two typical calibration curves of

transducer output voltage versus applied pressure. The lower curve shows the data and

regression line of an individual transducer. The upper curve is the output of the same

transducer mounted on an 18 inch (457 mm) tensiometer.













Pr terssre ssob)
4






















acquisition system provided 12-bit resolution. This produced 4096 counts in the 0-5 volt
5 10 15 -?0 25 -30 -35 -40

Pressure kPo)
Figure 3.7. Calibration curves of output voltage versus negative
pressure for transducer no. 4.



Pressure measurement accuracy. The analog-to-digital (A/D) board in the data

acquisition system provided 12-bit resolution. This produced 4096 counts in the 0-5 volt

range, 0.0012 volts per count, or a resolution of approximately 0.03 kPa. The relationship

between voltage and pressure for transducer no. 4 is given by equation (3.1).


kPa = (volts 1.1153) / -0.04766







35

The above equation resulted in a maximum expected error of 0.06 kPa at 1 volt

(-0.3 kPa of pressure) and 0.27 kPa at 5 volts (-83.7 kPa of pressure) (Stone et al., 1985).

Stray voltages in the instrumentation building reduced resolution to 0.01 volts or 0.2 kPa.

Instrumentation error of 0.2 kPa produces error of 20% to 4% in pressures from -1 kPa to

-5 kPa, respectively. Therefore, it was important to recognize that significant errors could

result when measuring soil water potentials near saturation.

Atmospheric pressure effects. Soil moisture matric potentials were measured using

differential pressure transducers with atmospheric pressure as their reference. To determine

the effects of atmospheric pressure changes on the performance of the differential pressure

transducers, ambient pressure was measured using an absolute pressure transducer. It was

found that atmospheric pressure did not vary enough to warrant correction of the matric

potential measurements. Typical fluctuations varied from 0.1 to 0.3 kPa. These were well

within the range of other variations in measurement accuracy. Figure 3.8 illustrates typical

variation of ambient air pressure during a week in June, 1988.



0.50-



0j -.25-

- - - - - - - - -



a-0.
JUNE



Daily S
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
JUNE
Daily Scale


Figure 3.8. Fluctuations in atmospheric pressure for the week of
June 13-19.










Lvsimeter System Operation

In Florida, vegetables are typically grown under conditions similar to those that were

simulated in the lysimeters. The tomato was chosen for this study for several reasons:


1. Tomatoes are one of the most important cash crops in the state.

2. Tomato plants have high transpiration rates which would allow measurable

extraction rates and produce very definite redistribution and extraction patterns.

3. Information on redistribution and extraction patterns, contribution of the water

table to crop water use, and water budgets was critically needed.


The Super Bush (VFN) hybrid (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) was selected for its

vigorous growth and large, leafy bush. These were desirable traits because they increase the

transpiration rate of the plant. Seedlings approximately 100 mm tall were purchased from

a commercial nursery and transplanted to the lysimeters on March 15, 1988. Two seedlings

were planted along the centerline of each bed, 450 mm apart, and each 225 mm from the

edge of the lysimeter. Plant growth was monitored by taking biweekly canopy height and

width measurements with a meter stick. Mature plants were removed from the lysimeters on

June 26, 1988 which allowed for a three month growing season.

Irrigation scheduling. Three of the six lysimeters were instrumented. The two

leftmost lysimeters in Figures 3.1 and 3.9 contained the Astatula f.s. and were labeled El and

E2 (for East I and East 2). The two center lysimeters contained the Builder's sand and were

labeled Cl and C2. Finally, the two rightmost lysimeters contained the Pomona sand and

were labeled Wl and W2. The three instrumented lysimeters were E2, CI, and WI.




Astatula f.s. Builder's sand Pomona sand


El IE C3 C2 ul W E


Figure 3.9. Arrangement of the three soils in the lysimeters.










An irrigation was applied when the soil water potential in a lysimeter dropped below

-10 kPa. Soil water potential was used as the trigger point for irrigation instead of a

percentage of water depletion from field capacity because potential is independent of soil

type. Thus, the plants were subjected to a uniform stress level regardless of soil type. The

-10 kPa value was chosen because it is consistent with the current practices used by growers

who tend to keep the root zone moist and the plants stress-free.

The irrigation system was manually operated and the lysimeter system was serviced

daily. Every morning the transducer outputs were monitored. If any of the instruments read

below -10 kPa, the appropriate lysimeters were irrigated.

Permanent ink was used to mark reference levels on the irrigation and water table

tanks. The reference level in the irrigation tanks was placed at the 40 L mark, or at 3/4 full.

To provide the positive head required by the irrigation system, the irrigation tanks were

always maintained at the reference level. The irrigation process began by adding the desired

irrigation volume, carefully measured with a graduated cylinder, to the water already in the

irrigation tanks. The valve on the irrigation tank was then opened and the water level in the

tank allowed to drop to the reference level.

Immediately following irrigation with the drip emitters, the volume of water used to

maintain the water table at the set level since the previous irrigation event was determined.

Initially, the water table tanks were filled to the reference level (40 L mark). As the water

table was recharged, the water level in the tanks dropped. After each irrigation event, water

was added to the corresponding water table tank with a graduated cylinder until the tank was

refilled to the reference level.

The vacuum system was left running continuously and the drain traps were checked

daily. If any water had collected in the drain traps, it was measured and recorded.

Irrigation volumes. The objective in determining the irrigation volumes to be applied

was that they should be large enough to wet the soil profile to field capacity but not so large

that they would drain from the root zone. The approximate irrigation volumes for each soil

type were estimated using the soil-moisture retention curves. The actual volumes were










determined through trial and error by incrementing the estimated volumes until drainage just

began. Adjustments were made to the volumes over the growing season, because as the plants

grew, they extracted larger volumes of soil water which had to be replenished.

Table 3.1 presents the irrigation volumes for the mature plants and their

corresponding depths over the surface area of the lysimeters. These data demonstrated the

need to apply small, frequent irrigations to minimize drainage. They also demonstrated that

the volumes were a function of soil type and that the soils with low water-holding capacities

(the Builder's sand and the Astatula f.s.) required much smaller irrigations than the Pomona

sand. However, soil type does not necessarily influence the plant water requirement.



Table 3.1. Volumes of Irrigation Applications and
Equivalent Depths Over the Lysimeter Areas.


Soil type Volumes (L) Depths (mm)


Builder's sand 4.00 3.46
Astatula f.s. 4.00 3.46
Pomona sand 8.00 6.93





Irrigation began immediately after the seedlings were transplanted but the volumes

were not recorded until the data acquisition system became operational on April 1. By

April 15, a water table 720 mm from the surface had been established in all the lysimeters

and was being maintained by the float valves. On this date, collection of data on the

contribution of the water table to crop water use began.


Soil Characteristics


Samples of each soil were taken and submitted for analysis to the University of

Florida's IFAS Soil Testing Laboratory. Analyses were done on pH, percent organic matter,

macro and micro nutrient concentrations, copper toxicity, and soluble salts. Organic matter

and pH data are included in Table 3.2. Complete results can be found in Appendix A.







39

Analysis of the Pomona sand indicated that the soil had an initial pH of 4.6. Because

the recommended soil pH for tomatoes is 6.0-6.8 (Stephens, 1984), 7.8 Mg/ha of dolomitic

limestone was incorporated into the surface 25 cm of soil to adjust the pH level, as

recommended by the Soil Testing Laboratory. The liming recommendation was based on the

Adams-Evans lime requirement test.



Table 3.2. Characteristic Soil Properties.


Bulk Organic Saturated Residual Saturated
Soil density matter water cont. water cont. Hydraulic Cond. pH
type (g/cm ) (g/g) (mm3/mm3) (mms/mms) (mm/hr)
Pb % r0 0r K,

Builder's sand 1.68 0.01 0.35 0.01 536.07 6.8
Astatula f.s. 1.66 0.58 0.41 0.03 428.35 7.1
Pomona sand 1.10 5.34 0.54 0.08 169.77 4.6





The soil test reports also provided standard fertilization recommendations for each

soil which were used to compute the appropriate fertilizer applications. The

recommendations were similar for all three soils and called for 135 kg N, 180 kg P2Os, and

180 kg K20 per ha. Half the requirement was met by mixing a complete fertilizer with a

micronutrient supplement into the soil prior to planting. The remaining requirement was met

by adding a complete water soluble fertilizer to the irrigation water tanks and applying it

through the irrigation system at each irrigation. This fertilizer was supplemented with a

micronutrient foliar spray.


Bulk Density

The bulk densities of the three soils used in the lysimeters were determined in the

laboratory by packing five samples of each soil into fifteen aluminum cans which were

50 mm deep and had a 50 mm diameter. After oven drying at 105" C, the mass of each










sample was determined by subtracting the mass of the can from the total mass. The can

volumes were found by determining the mass of water required to completely fill each can

and converting that mass to volume. Excellent agreement was obtained between the five

samples of each soil which were averaged to produce the bulk densities given in Table 3.2.


Soil-Moisture Retention Curves

Soil-moisture retention curves were developed for the three soils used in the study

(Figure 3.10). A pressure plate extractor and the previously determined bulk densities were

used to develop desorption curves of volumetric soil water content versus pressure potential.

Five soil samples were used to determine the volumetric water content of the soil at a given

pressure. Early results indicated that the time required for soil samples to reach equilibrium

at a given pressure was much larger than the 24 hrs recommended in the literature. In this

study, a five day period was used to ensure equilibrium. Saturated and residual water

contents are given in Table 3.2.

The coefficients of variation of the water contents near saturation (-5 to -1 kPa)

ranged from 2% to 8%, respectively, emphasizing the difficulty in obtaining these data in this

pressure range. Some of this variability may have been due to normal sampling variability,

while much was probably due to variation in control pressure in this range. The coefficients

of variation generally decreased to less than 0.1% as potential decreased to -100 kPa.


Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K,) was determined with a constant head

permeameter. A soil core of length AL was packed into a permeameter and saturated with

water from the bottom upwards. A constant depth of water was then established over the soil

column and the system allowed to reach equilibrium. The outflow of water from the system,

Q, was measured at fixed time intervals, t, to determine when equilibrium conditions were

established. The constant head difference, At, was calculated by adding the depth of the

standing water to AL. The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined from









Q AL
K, A-- (3.2)
At AO


where A is the cross-sectional area of the soil column. The saturated hydraulic conductivities

of the three soils are given in Table 3.2.


Hydraulic Conductivity Curve

Hydraulic conductivity curves were developed for each of the three soils by the van

Genuchten (1980) method because it has been extensively used to successfully predict

conductivity curves of sandy soils. The observed data required by the method for each soil

are the soil-moisture retention curve, the saturated and residual water contents, and the

saturated hydraulic conductivity.

First, equation (2.6) was fitted to the data. The resulting parameters a, n, and m are

tabulated below. To test the fit of the analytical functions, the predicted soil-moisture

retention curves were plotted against the observed curves in Figure 3.11. The fits were

excellent for the builder's sand and the Astatula f.s. and good for the Pomona sand.

Equation (2.9) was then used to predict hydraulic conductivity which was plotted against

pressure head in Figure 3.12.




Table 3.3. Parameters for van Genuchten's Equation.


Soil type a n m


Builder's sand 0.032 6.59 0.848
Astatula f.s. 0.033 3.53 0.717
Pomona sand 0.029 3.01 0.668
















O Builder's sand
T Astatula f.s.

E Pomona sand





-Si

7 1000-
Q)

U)








1000

1 0 0 .. . . . . .
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Soil Moisture Content, 6



Figure 3.10. Soil-moisture retention curves for the three soils used in
this study.







43




1E+04

Observed curves
0 ---- Fitted curves
SCurves from left to right:
E Builder's sand
E Astatula f.s.
S \ Pomona sand


U
(D
T 1000-






J)








0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Soil Moisture Content, 0


Figure 3.11. Fitted and observed soil-moisture retention curves for
the three soils used in this study.












1-02 ---- .uu UII 0 oZ UIIU _
S -- Astatulo f.s.

\ --- Pomona sand



E \ \ \
E


10 2

U


._ 10-6 \\
-0 10-4
0





\- 1
10-o
S10 -1I ,



10- 10
102 103 1 0

Negative Pressure Head (mm)


Figure 3.12. Hydraulic conductivity curves for the three soils used in
this study.













CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS


Plant Growth

The months of March and April, 1988, were unusually cool in Gainesville.

Consequently, plant growth and water use were uncharacteristicly limited during those

months. The majority of plant growth occurred in May and June (Table 4.1). For this

reason, the discussion of water use was limited to these final eight weeks of the season.



Table 4.1. Canopy Dimensions (m).


Soil Type March 15 May 01 June 26
and
Lysimeter Height Width Height Width Height Width


Builder's Sand Cl 0.11 0.06 0.24 0.30 0.70 0.45
Builder's Sand C2 0.10 0.07 0.26 0.28 0.67 0.38

Astatula f.s. El 0.12 0.05 0.25 0.31 0.73 0.55
Astatula f.s. E2 0.10 0.07 0.27 0.26 0.86 0.48

Pomona sand W1 0.10 0.07 0.26 0.29 0.93 1.06
Pomona sand W2 0.11 0.06 0.28 0.32 0.93 1.14





Despite efforts to maintain plant size uniform across all soil types, the plants in the

Pomona sand grew considerably better than those in the Astatula f.s., while the smallest

plants were produced in the builder's sand. Yield data were not collected because the fruit

were afflicted by blossom end rot, particularly those in the Pomona sand. The disease, which

is caused by calcium deficiency, was treated by spraying the plants with a foliar calcium

supplement. The plants responded well to the treatment, but not quickly enough to produce

a representative yield by the end of the experiment.









Measurement Accuracy


There are inherent limitations when drainage type lysimeters are used to conduct

water use studies. These limitations which, along with other measurement errors, may reduce

the accuracy of collected data, must be recognized and accounted for.


Water Budget Accuracy

All water volumes applied to or extracted from the lysimeters were measured with

a graduated cylinder. The accuracy of the graduated cylinder and the ability to refill the

water supply tanks reproducibly determined the accuracy of the measured water volumes.

A I L graduated cylinder with accuracy to 10 mL was used to refill the supply tanks and

measure drainage water extractions. Calibration tests indicated that the supply tanks were

refilled reproducibly to within 50 mL which produced errors in water inflows and outflows

of less than 2%.


Weekly. Monthly, and Seasonal Water Use Accuracy

For accurate short-term measurement of water use from a lysimeter, an accurate

measurement of soil-water storage or soil-moisture content is required. Because drainage

type lysimeters do not permit a direct determination of soil-moisture content, it was

determined indirectly by monitoring soil water potential.

Soil-moisture content and water potential are related through the soil-moisture

retention curve which was measured for each soil. But, as discussed earlier, the translation

of soil water potential to soil-moisture content on the basis of the soil-moisture retention

curves measured introduced errors up to 8% near saturation. The combination of

instrumentation error of 0.2 kPa (20% to 4% of -I to -5 kPa) and error resulting from the

pressure extractor procedure were the causes of this error. The resulting error prevented

accurate measurements of daily water use, although wetting or drying patterns were still

determined. As the measurement period increased, the relative size of the error diminished

with respect to the water used by the crop. Thus, weekly water use was accurately

determined, especially during high water use periods.









Crop Water Use


Because the research was conducted in rain-sheltered lysimeters buffered by well

watered grass, the water use data may not represent the water use requirements of an

extensive tomato crop grown under field conditions in Gainesville, Florida. The data are

primarily a comparison of crop water use contributions by the water table and the irrigation

system with respect to soil type.


Partitioning of Crop Water Use

For the purposes of this study, measured crop water use was defined as


crop water use = irrigation drainage + water table recharge (4.1)


The design of the lysimeters permitted crop water use to be partitioned into irrigation and

water table recharge components. Monthly values in terms of mm over the surface area of

the lysimeter for each of the components are presented in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. The numbers

over the irrigation and water table recharge bars represent the percentage of crop water use

contributed by each component. The number over the drainage bar represents the percentage

of irrigation water lost to drainage. Drainage was a function of soil type. The Pomona sand,

with the greatest water holding capacity, consistently had the smallest drainage fraction.

Overall, drainage volumes were small because, as discussed earlier, irrigation applications

were designed to minimize deep percolation.

During May, when the plants were still maturing, the contribution of the water table

to crop water use in the builder's sand, the Astatula f.s., and the Pomona sand was 16%, 19%,

and 33%, respectively (Figure 4.1). In June, when the plants were mature, the water table

contributions were 26%, 34%, and 31% (Figure 4.2). These data indicate that as the plant

root systems developed and extended down towards the capillary fringe in the builder's sand

and the Astatula f.s., the water table contribution increased significantly. In the Pomona

sand, on the other hand, plant size had little effect on water table contribution. In fact, the

contribution of the water table to crop water use in Pomona sand remained the same












PARTITIONING OF CROP WATER USE
May, 1988

Depth. (mm)


Buider's and Asttull f I. Pomona sand

E Crop water use Irom Irrigation M Crop wtllr ul fhror watr ftble
E3 Orainago



Figure 4.1. Partitioning of crop water use in May.


PARTITIONING OF CROP WATER USE
June, 1988

Deplhs (mm)
142%


Builder'l land Astatula I.e. Pormon sand

E[ Crop waler usl from Irrigation S Crop water usl from water table
q Drainage


Figure 4.2. Partitioning of crop water use in June.









throughout the growing season. Consequently, it was concluded that the properties of the

soil, and in particular the particle size distribution and organic matter content, allowed the

capillary fringe to rise high enough in the Pomona sand to make water available to the plant

roots, regardless of plant size.

It is also possible that the rate of growth of the plant root system towards the capillary

fringe in the builder's sand and the Astatula f.s. was a function of the irrigation schedule.

If these two soils could not hold the daily crop water requirement from only one irrigation

event per day, the root system may have developed towards the water table in response to the

water available there. Pressure transducer readings of up to 50 kPa indicate that the plants

in all three soils may have experienced mild, daily short term water stresses during the hours

preceding irrigation. At no time, however, did the plants show any visual signs of water

stress such as wilting.


Weekly, Monthly, and Seasonal Water Use

Weekly crop water use for the final eight weeks of the growing season is presented

in Figures 4.3-4.8. Each figure contains two graphs. The graph on the left shows weekly

water use in the form of stacked bars where the lower bar depicts the contribution of

irrigation water to crop water use and the upper bar the contribution of the water table. The

other half of each figure presents potential evapotranspiration (computed by the Penman

equation) over the same period. By comparing the two graphs, it can be clearly seen that the

fluctuations in water use correspond closely with the fluctuations in potential ET.

The water use data indicate that crop water use was a function of plant size and that

the plants' source of water (irrigation versus water table) was a function of soil type. The

plant size data presented in Table 4.1 do not adequately illustrate the striking difference in

appearance between the plants. This is more apparent in Figures 4.1-4.8 where it can be

clearly seen that although the water use patterns were the same for all three soils, the total

water use values varied dramatically from soil to soil.






WEEKLY WATER USE

Depth (mm) MAY
60

50

40

30

20

10

0;


*B


08 15 22
Weekly Scale
From irrigation
From water table


WEEKLY POTENTIAL ET

Depth (mm) MAY
60

50

40

30

20

10


08 15 22 2S
Weekly Scale
Potential ET


Figure 4.3. Weekly crop water use in builder's sand, May, 1988.







WEEKLY WATER USE

Depth (mm) JU
60

50

40

30

20

10


]a


NE


05 12 19
Weekly Scale
From irrigation
From water table


WEEKLY POTENTIAL ET

Depth (mm) JUNE
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
05 12 19 21
Weekly Scale
Potential ET


Figure 4.4. Weekly crop water use in builder's sand, June, 1988.







WEEKLY WATER USE

Depth (mm) MAY
60

50

40

30

20

10


08 15 22 29
Weekly Scale
From irrigation
] From water table


WEEKLY POTENTIAL ET

Depth (mm) MAY
60

50 .- -- ----- --

0

30

20

10

0
08 15 22 2!
Weekly Scale
Potential ET


Figure 4.5. Weekly crop water use in Astatula f.s. May, 1988.






WEEKLY WATER USE

Depth (mm) J
JUNE
60

50

40

30

20

10


05 12 19 26
Weekly Scale
From irrigation
f From water table


WEEKLY POTENTIAL ET

Depth (mm)
JUNE
60

50

40 --"------ ''-

30

20

10

0
05 12 19 21
Weekly Scale
Potential ET


Figure 4.6. Weekly crop water use in Astatula f.s. June, 1988.







WEEKLY WATER USE

Depth (mm) MAY
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
08 15 22 29
Weekly Scale
E From irrigation
E From water table


WEEKLY POTENTIAL ET

Depth (mm) MAY
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
08 15 22 29
Weekly Scale
Potential ET


Figure 4.7. Weekly crop water use in Pomona sand, May, 1988.






WEEKLY WATER USE

Depth (mm)
JUNE
60

50

40

30

20

10

0 -
05 12 19 26
Weekly Scale
From irrigation
[] From water table


WEEKLY POTENTIAL ET

Depth (mm)JUNE
JUNE
60

50

40

30

20

10


05 12 19 2E
Weekly Scale
Potential ET


Figure 4.8. Weekly crop water use in Pomona sand, June, 1988.









Seasonal water use budgets varied greatly from soil to soil. These differences were

attributed to differences in plant size. Values for total monthly crop water use and seasonal

use are tabulated in Table 4.2. Cumulative use for the final eight weeks of the growing

season are shown in Figures 4.9-4.11


Table 4.2. Monthly and Seasonal Water Use.


May June Seasonal
Soil Type
(mm) (L/m) (mm) (L/m) (mm) (L/m)


Builder's Sand 41 53 50 64 91 117
Astatula f.s. 77 99 75 96 152 195
Pomona sand 145 186 195 250 340 436


Depths (mm) CUMULATIVE WATER USE
350
30 I from tri ntlon
0 from watr table


50


02 08 15 22 29 05 12 19 26
MAY JUNE
Builder's sand



Figure 4.9. Cumulative water use for the plants growing in Builder's sand.









Depths (mm) CUMULATIVE WATER USE
350






150





02 08 15 22 29 05 12 19 26
MAY JUNE
Astatula f.s.




Figure 4.10. Cumulative water use for the plants growing in Astatula f.s.







Depths (mm) CUMULATIVE WATER USE
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
02 08 15 22 29 05 12 19 26
MAY JUNE
Pomona sand



Figure 4.11. Cumulative water use for the plants growing in Pomona sand.









Redistribution and Extraction Patterns


The data acquisition system proved extremely effective in determining redistribution

and extraction patterns in the soil profile. These patterns, however, were limited to the top

300 mm of the soil profile because that is where 9 of the 10 tensiometers were located

(Figures 3.5 and 3.6)

The data acquisition system read the instruments at one minute intervals. These

readings were passed on to the microcomputer where ten minute averages were computed and

saved to disk. These data, graphed for weekly periods, provided excellent means of

monitoring the changes in soil water status in the soil profile. Figure 4.12 is a graph of

readings from the three tensiometers in the Astatula f.s. at the 100 mm depth and at radial

distances 50, 150, and 250 mm from the irrigation lateral. This figure illustrates extraction,

irrigation, and redistribution during a week in late April when the plants were small.

Since the 50 mm tensiometer was closest to the irrigation lateral and the plants, it was

the first to respond to irrigation and extraction by plant roots. As a result, the extremes

exhibited by this curve are much larger than those of the other two curves. The first high

peak of the curve occurred in the late afternoon of April 27. Immediately following is a

period of overnight redistribution of soil water succeeded by the reinitiation of extraction

the next morning. These events are marked by the U shape in the curve. At the top of the

second peak, an irrigation occurred, creating the sudden increase in soil water potential.

Figure 4.13 isolates the 24-hour period around the irrigation event and permits a closer view

of how the tensiometers reacted to the wetting front.

From Figure 4.13, there was a considerable time lag between the irrigation event and

the tensiometers response to the wetting front. As expected, the lag was a function of

distance. The tensiometer 50 mm from the lateral responded to the wetting front about 10

minutes after the irrigation event which occurred at 10:30 and the tensiometer 150 mm away

responded to it about 40 minutes later. It was difficult to distinguish when the wetting front

reached the 250 mm tensiometer because the tensiometer's response was only on the order of

2 kPa. However, the tensiometer did eventually react to the approaching wetting front.





























APRIL
Daily Scale

Figure 4.12. Tensiometer readings versus time on a daily scale.


ASTATULA F.S.

15- -0- adial dist 5 = 550 -
-f- radio dist. =150mm
rdia dist. = 250mm



10a


Hourly Scale


Figure 4.13. Tensiometer readings versus time on an hourly scale.









Another series of extraction-irrigation-redistribution cycles which occurred in the

Pomona sand during the week of June 6 is shown in Figure 4.14. In this case, the plants were

mature and once extraction began, low soil water potentials were reached very quickly. The

events of June 11 and 12 were chosen for closer study because irrigation occurred late in

the afternoon, shortly before sunset. This condition allowed redistribution and extraction to

be studied independently. Redistribution proceeded overnight with minimal influence from

extraction, while extraction was studied the following morning after most of the

redistribution had been completed. All the sudden drops (increases in soil water potential)

indicate irrigation events.

The extraction-redistribution cycle of June 11 and 12 was studied by using transducer

readings over a 24-hour period to graph soil water equipotential lines in the bed profile.

Equipotential lines were limited to the bed because, as can be seen in Figure 4.15, 9 of 10

tensiometers were located there. This, however, was not a serious limitation to this study

because most of the redistribution and extraction events occurred in the bed. Only half of

the lysimeter profile was instrumented because the irrigation lateral, which was located along

the center line of the bed, created a plane of symmetry. For the same reason, the tensiometer

at the 500 mm depth which was actually located on the opposite half of the lysimeter

(Figure 3.5) from the other nine tensiometers, was used as shown in Figure 4.15.

Figures 4.16-4.21 depict the change in equipotential lines over a 24-hour period in

the instrumented Pomona sand lysimeter for the June 11 and 12 irrigation, redistribution, and

extraction cycle. Figure 4.16 shows the soil water status in the bed when the irrigation event

occurred at 17:00. Low potentials were found mostly in the top left quadrant of the profile

where, as expected, most of the roots were concentrated. The tensiometers on the right hand

side of the bed were in relatively moist soil at -10 kPa.

The next figure (4.17) shows the equipotential lines 20 minutes after the irrigation

event. By that time, the wetting front had moved past the shallowest tensiometer 50 mm

from the lateral and was beginning to affect the shallowest tensiometer at the 150 mm radial

distance. The front had not yet penetrated to the 200 mm depth.









POMONA SAND
60
S-- radial dist. = 50mm
S 1 -t- radial dist. = 150mm
S50 -A- radial dist. = 250mm


40
c
60
0 30
0

C 20 I A


*- 10
0 -- __)


Daily Scale


Figure 4.14. Tensiometer readings versus time on a daily scale for the
week of June 6.


O 50 150 250 Radial Distances
and Depths (mm)

00

00 m m m TENSIOMETER
LOCATIONS

0O .a


WATER
TABLE


300 500 750


Figure 4.15. Side view of a lysimeter showing the bed, the water
table, and the tensiometer locations.









Figure 4.18 shows the equipotential lines at 18:00, one hour after irrigation. By that

time, the wetting front had clearly reached the 6 tensiometers closest to the plane of

symmetry. The equipotential lines in this figure appear to be in some disarray. This was

caused by assuming that this line source problem was two-dimensional. In fact, it was not

completely so because the wetting front did not move uniformly through the soil profile

along the whole length of the bed. Since the tensiometers were not located in a single plane

as shown in the figures, but were located along the length of the bed, some instruments

responded to the wetting front earlier or later than they would have in a true 2-dimensional

homogeneous, isotropic soil. This situation occurred only shortly after an irrigation event

when most of the instruments were affected by the moving wetting front.

Figure 4.19 shows the equipotential lines following overnight redistribution. This

figure distinctly shows which sections of the soil profile were affected by the irrigation

event. The potentials in the top right quadrant of the bed remained unchanged despite

irrigation while the remainder of the bed returned to field capacity. Clearly, the radial

movement of the wetting front was limited to less than 250 mm. The vertical movement of

the front, on the other hand, was more than 300 mm.

Figures 4.20 and 4.21 show the effects of extraction. At 12:00, the effects of

extraction are apparent. At 17:00, 24 hours after the irrigation event, soil water status in the

profile was very similar to the conditions that existed before irrigation. What is also apparent

from these figures is that there was very little extraction taking place near the edges of the

bed.

Overall, very little change in soil water status took place at radial distances of more

than 200 mm from the irrigation lateral. On the other hand, redistribution and extraction

were evident for at least 300 mm in the vertical direction. Similar redistribution and

extraction patterns were obtained for the builder's sand and the Astatula f.s. Radial

movement of the wetting fronts in these two soils, however, was less than in the Pomona

sand. These observations were a function of the hydraulic properties of the sandy soils

studied.
























0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5
Distance from lateral (mm)

Figure 4.16. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile at irrigation (kPa).


redistribution
17:20


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance from lateral (mm)

Figure 4.17. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile during redistribution (kPa).








redistribution

18:00
50

E 100-

150-

S200/

250-
50 _5 Pomona sand
300 I
0 50 100 15L 200 25 300 350 400 450 500
Distance from lateral (mm)

Figure 4.18. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile during redistribution (kPa).





3 redistribution
07:00
50


100 \
E *- \
E
150 \
CI\

S200

250.
250 / Pomono sand
300 *- -- --
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance from lateral (mm)

Figure 4.19. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile following redistribution (kPa).










extraction
12:00









4\


Pomona sand


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500-

Distance from lateral (mm)

Figure 4.20. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile during extraction (kPa).


50


100
E
150
-c

c 200


- I I I I I I I I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 500 350 400 450 500

Distance from lateral (mm)

Figure 4.21. Equipotential lines in a Pomona sand profile during extraction (kPa).









Evaporation from the Soil


Evaporation from the bare soil (furrows) between the mulched beds of each lysimeter

could not be calculated from ET data collected during the growing season. A short

experiment was therefore conducted after the growing season to determine the magnitude of

the evaporation term.

The plants were removed from the lysimeters and perforations in the plastic mulch

were sealed to eliminate transpiration or evaporation losses from the bed. The water table

was continuously recharged by the float valves, and the water table tanks were replenished

after two or three day measurement periods.

The depths of water lost to evaporation from each lysimeter was calculated by

dividing the volumes required to refill the water table tanks by the furrow surface areas of

the lysimeters (0.255 m2). The evaporation depths were then compared to Penman ET values.

Figure 4.22 presents the data for approximately three weeks in October and November, 1988.

The data are given as depths of water lost to evapotranspiration as computed by the Penman

equation and depths of water lost to evaporation from the three soils used in the study during

the two or three day measurement periods. The evaporation depths of all three soils were

generally an order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding ET values but followed the

same trend. The evaporation values were the largest for Pomona sand, followed by

Astatula f.s., and builder's sand. Consequently, it was concluded that the evaporation values

were a function of the soil properties, and in particular the particle size distribution and

organic matter content. Because the two replications of each soil produced almost identical

data, only the average data are presented in Figure 4.22.

Soil evaporation coefficients, C,, were developed for each of the soils. The

coefficient of each soil was computed by dividing the observed evaporation by Penman ET

for each of the nine measurement periods discussed above and averaging the nine values to

obtain a mean. The coefficients were C, = 0.037, 0.070, and 0.097, for builder's sand,

Astatula f.s., and Pomona sand, respectively. Daily bare soil evaporation from the furrows





















Penman ET
20




E


. 10-



5-




12 14 17 19 21 24 26 28 31 04
Oct. Nov




Astatula f.s.
20-



E 15
E



o to



S5.




12 14 17 19 21 24 26 25 31 04
Oct. Nov.

Measurement Periods


Builder's sand
20



15



10-



5-



0 F,
12 14 17 19 21 24 26 28 31 04
Oct. Nov.




Pomona sand
20


12 14 17 19 21 24 26 28 31 04
Oct. Nov

Measurement Periods


Figure 4.22. Comparison of Penman ET and observed bare soil evaporation
from the lysimeters.







68

during the growing season was approximated by multiplying the corresponding daily Penman

ET values by the appropriate coefficients. Figure 4.23 presents daily Penman ET pan values

and estimated bare soil evaporation values from the lysimeters for each of the three soils

during the last two months of the growing season.


800-


1 15 22 29 5 1:I 19 26
MAI'








Figure 4.23. Comparison of daily Penman ET and estimated daily bare
soil evaporation from the lysimeters during the final two
months of the growing season.


'T E

A "














CHAPTER 5
NUMERICAL SOLUTION


The Richards equation was solved with a finite difference approximation. Because

line sources produce a continuous wetted band along the length of the lateral (the y-axis),

they can be studied as two-dimensional problems in the x-z plane. A two-dimensional

numerical model was therefore developed to simulate infiltration, redistribution, and

extraction of water in the soil profile.

Several assumptions were employed in the development of the numerical model to

simplify the complexities associated with mathematically describing water movement in

unsaturated porous media. These assumptions were:

1. Physical properties of the soil were homogeneous, isotropic, and nondeforming

under varying moisture content and pressure head.

2. Physical and chemical properties of the soil were constant in time.

3. Hydraulic conductivity, K(O), and pressure head, 0, were single-valued

functions of water content, 0, (nonhysteretic).


One-Dimensional Model Development

A one-dimensional vertical simulation model was developed as the precursor of the

two-dimensional model. Its purpose was to verify that the finite difference equations closely

approximated the governing partial differential equation. For one-dimensional flow, equation

(2.19) reduces to


at a r f 1(@)
C()-= K() 1 S() (5.1)
at az ie iaz

where z = the vertical dimension.







70

Equation (5.1) was discretized with an implicit finite difference scheme that used

explicit linearization of the soil parameters as suggested by Haverkamp et al. (1977).

Application of equation (5.1) to the soil was accomplished by superimposing a mesh over the

soil profile with a finite number of grids or cells as shown in Figure 5.1. For simplicity, the

parameters K(V), C(O), and S(4) were represented by K, C, and S, respectively. The

superscript j was used as the space increment and Az as the grid spacing in space.


Depths q.urf

j=1 soil surface

j=l Az. 01 K, C,








-j-I *. t^j.1 Oj.1 Kj_j Cj_




K C


j=j+l Kj+ 9, + Cjp




j=j *j j Kj C




j=-J 3 B K1 Ct

j=J+ water table

j=J+l bobtton=m 0=o K=K, C=0
2

Figure 5.1. The finite difference grid system used for the one-dimensional model.
Adapted from Stone (1987), p.38.








The pressure head and soil parameters of each cell were computed and assigned to
the node located at the center of each cell. The total number of interior nodes was J with
the water table, which acted as the lower boundary, located at j=J++. The exterior node, at
j=J+1, was used in the finite difference equation that described the lower boundary
condition.
The numerical form of equation (5.1) was obtained by letting

a [ (a) Ow
-- [K() I- 1I (5.2)
Oz L Oz az

and discretizing the right hand side of equation (5.2) around j to obtain


I J Wj+ W (5.3)
'9Z i Az

Equation (5.3) was then substituted into equation (5.2) to give

1 fr 1 1 F (a4 1 1
K]j [- 1 K I- I- (5.4)
AzL J J L z J

The derivatives of i with respect to z were approximated as


-' = 1 (5.5)
az j+i Az

ao 1 'J-iI
---1 1 (5.6)
Ir J Az

which when substituted back into equation (5.4) gave


A'z [K [ - z- [ 1 (5.7)
Az A~z Az








The superscript n was used as the time coordinate and At as the grid spacing in time.
The implicit formulation of equation (5.7) was obtained by evaluating at the n+l time level.
The time derivative in equation (5.1) was then replaced by a backward-difference
approximation relative to the n+l time level. By using explicit linearization, the soil
parameters are known at each time step and are evaluated using the values of 0 at the n time
step (tn).

on f[ +[ 1
C- -p- K *
At Az I Az J



[K - 1 }- (5.8)

The hydraulic conductivity K(tti) was taken as the arithmetic mean for all interior
nodes I s j s J where


K -- + (5.9)
2

KI + K.
K = 1 (5.10)
2

Since explicit linearization was used to evaluate the soil parameters, the only
unknowns in equation (5.8) were terms containing "n+'. The equation was then rearranged
so that the unknowns were on the left hand side and the knowns on the right hand side


l j +i+ [C +(K -1 + K? + n
Az J LAt Az' J AZ +

C';I (KjI K +)
= -Sn (5.11)
At Az


or in a more usable form












Aj+' + Dj + BjO: = R (5.12)


where

K"
A =- (5.13)
Az'





At

K+
B = I (5.15)
AZ2


R (K_ K ) (5.16)
At Az


Equation (5.12) was written for each of the interior nodes 2 j < J-I in the soil

profile. The top and bottom grids of the system required equation (5.11) to be modified so

that it would describe the boundary conditions.


Boundary Conditions

Two types of boundary conditions are usually associated with the flow equation in

a soil profile. A Dirichlet condition specifies the dependent variable (in this case the pressure

head, 4). A Neuman condition specifies the derivative of the dependent variable which for

the soil water problem means a specification of the flow through the boundary (Feddes et al.,

1978). To simulate the conditions encountered in this study both types of boundary

conditions were specified.

Too boundary. Physically, the top boundary of the soil profile consisted of the plastic

mulch. The only flow through the soil surface allowed by the mulch was surface infiltration

due to irrigation. Mathematically, this was modeled by a flux boundary condition with a








surface flux, qurfqe (q,). The surface flux during irrigation was set equal to the water
application rate until the irrigation event was completed. At all other times, q, was set to
zero. The total depth of water infiltrated at any time was calculated as the summation of the
incremental infiltration volumes at all previous time steps. A flux across a boundary in the
vertical direction is described by the partial differential equation


q=-K (5.17)
L8z J

When equation (5.16) was discretized around j it became


qj -Kj l1 (5.18)
k Az

which when evaluated at j = 1, the soil surface (Figure 5.1), gave


I = -K -I q (5.19)
L Az

When equation (5.7) was evaluated at the first node, j=l, it became

n1- rrn f I On+1
C- -- K~,2 I
At Az Az


[K/2 I- - k Sn (5.20)
L Az

The third term of equation (5.20) is the same as equation (5.19). Substitution of q, for the
term reduced equation (5.20) to


Cn --=- K/2 1 +q, S' (5.21)
At Az [ I Az









When the equation (5.21) was rearranged so that unknowns were on the left and knowns on

the right it became

[Cn K/2"I K n1 K1 n
I- i S; (5.22)
At Az2 A At Az

or in a more usable form

Dl 'b+ + Bln+1 = R (5.23)

where

c;
D,-- B, (5.24)
At

Kn/
B, = (5.25)
Az2


CnV q, Kn/.
RI= -- S (5.26)
At Az

Bottom boundary. A constant potential boundary condition was used to simulate the

water table. When equation (5.11) was evaluated for the last node, j = J, it became

[ K_ 1 + (Kj + Kb+ p) + K In 1l

AZ2 t AZ2 Z2 J


Cn n (Kjn_ Knj,)
-S; (5.27)
At Az

Because J+1 was the exterior node at the lower boundary which was held at a constant
pressure head, ,botom,, "+ = .+1 = bottom. Therefore, the term containing Int in

equation (5.27) was known and could be moved to the right hand side of the equation, which

when simplified, became







76

AjOb. + Dj;+1 = Rj (5.28)


where



A = (5.29)
Az2


Cn Kn
Dj= Aj + (5.30)
At Az'


Cnn, (Kn Kn,) K+,,
R = + bottom S; (5.31)
At Az AzI


The flux across the lower boundary, bottom (qb) was calculated by evaluating

equation (5.18) at the lower boundary (j=J+i). Physically, qb represented the rate at which

water moved from the water table into the soil profile or drained to the sump.

An equation for a flux boundary condition at the lower boundary was also developed

to allow the model to be compared to solutions developed by other researchers. The equation

was derived by following the same steps used to develop equation (5.22).


Solution

The system of equations which were formed by applying equations (5.28), (5.12), and

(5.23) to the appropriate nodes produced a tridiagonal matrix equation which was implicit in

terms of pressure head, '.


D, B 1 R,

A2 D, B, 22 R,



= (5.32)



A-_J Dj-_ Bj- jj Rj
A, Dj 0 Rj








77

The tridiagonal matrix was readily solved by a Gaussian elimination method. In this

work, a very concise algorithm utilizing recursion formulas for the solution of the tridiagonal

system which was presented by Carnahan et al. (1969), was used.

A computer program used the finite difference equations and solved the tridiagonal

matrix to simulate infiltration, redistribution, extraction, and upward flow from a water

table. The program was written in Microsoft FORTRAN and designed to run on

microcomputers.


Time Step

Implicit numerical techniques generally permit the use of much larger time steps

than explicit techniques while maintaining stability. A suitable time step may be determined

by trial and error and kept constant throughout the simulation. A much more efficient

approach, however, is to have a variable time step which decreases in size during periods of

increased soil water movement (infiltration) and increases during periods of relative inactivity

(redistribution). Zaradny (1978) proposed that the time step be estimated by


( Az
At < (5.33)
1qmaxl

where


At = the variable time step (hrs),

Az = grid spacing in space (mm),

lmqx = the maximum net flux into any grid (mm/hr), and
r = the maximum permissible change in water content, 0, for any grid in the
soil profile where 0.015 < f < 0.035.


Feddes et al. (1978) used the lower value of f to accommodate the rapid movement of water

during infiltration and early stages of redistribution. Higher values of { were used during

slow changes in boundary conditions such as continuous upward flow of water or during the







78

later stages of redistribution. Clark (1982) and Stone (1987) also used this method to compute

time steps.


Updating of Soil Parameters

The soil parameters 0, C, and K corresponding to the new values of 0 at the end of

every time step were determined from equations (2.6), (2.8), and (2.9), respectively, for the

three soils used in the lysimeters (builder's sand, Astatula f.s., and Pomona sand). Because

the observed soil-moisture retention curves and those predicted by equation (2.6) were well

matched (Figure 3.11), this approach was much more efficient and about as accurate as a

table lookup procedure.

The tabulated parameters of five other soils presented by Clark (1982) were included

in the model to give it more flexibility. A tabulated data search was used to determine the

corresponding values of K, C, and 6 for these soils. Because the search had to be conducted

for each grid at the end of every time step, the logarithmic interpolation method used by

Clark (1982) was employed to reduce computer time. The table was set up with linearly

increasing multiples of the logarithmic value of 0. Since the tabulated soil parameters were

discrete values, errors arose from the interpolation procedure. The errors however, proved

to be less than 1% and were neglected. The tabulated parameters of the five soils, (Arredondo

f.s., Rehevot sand, Adelanto loam, Pachappa loam, and Yolo light clay), are presented in

Appendix C.


Mass Balance

A mass balance was computed at the end of every time step and used to check the

stability of the simulation model. The water stored in each grid was integrated throughout

the profile and compared to the cumulative inflows and outflows. Inflows consisted of

surface infiltrations and upward flow from the water table. Outflows included drainage,

root extractions, and evaporation from the soil surface which was a component of the surface

grids' root extraction term. The mass balance error was calculated as the difference between

the water stored in the profile at any time and the sum of inflows and outflows.










One-Dimensional Model Verification


The accuracy of the one-dimensional model was determined by comparing it to

experimental data and analytical and numerical solutions found in the literature. The

comparisons were selected to test every aspect of the model with soils that had widely varying

hydraulic properties.

Analytical solutions of the Richards equation generally deal with steady-state

situations or simplified boundary conditions or geometries, but are useful because they

provide a true solution against which numerical simulations can be compared. Gardner (1958)

developed several analytical solutions based on the matric flux potential concept (Philip, 1959)

to describe steady-state evaporation from a water table in soils whose hydraulic conductivity

function could be described by


a
K(O) = (5.34)
(, + b)


where a, n, and b are constants.

Gardner and Fireman (1958) used one of these analytical solutions to calculate steady-

state evaporation from a Yolo light clay with a water table 1050 mm from the soil surface.

To obtain the solution, they empirically fitted equation (5.34) to the Yolo light clay hydraulic

conductivity data that Moore (1939) presented in his landmark paper. From the resulting

curve they determined that a = 400 cm3/day, b = 400 cm2, and n = 2 and used these constants

in the analytical solution that they presented. They simulated steady-state evaporation at the

rate of 0.033 mm/hr (0.08 cm/day) and compared their results to the data given by Moore

(1939) for steady-state evaporation from a column of Yolo light clay with a water table at a

depth of 1050 mm.

The one-dimensional model developed in this study was used to simulate steady-state

evaporation for the same conditions. For this validation, the evaporation rate was simulated

as a negative surface flux and K(i) was computed from equation (5.34). The other soil







80

parameters were updated with the tabulated data search. The numerical solution was in

excellent agreement with the analytical solution and the experimental data as shown in

Figure 5.2.

Simulated infiltration into an initially very dry soil profile was compared to a study

by Rubin and Steinhardt (1963). They developed a model to study constant intensity rainfall

infiltration into Rehevot sand by implicitly solving the 0-form of the Richards equation.

They presented results for rainfall intensities of 12.7 and 47 mm/hr on a semi-infinite soil

profile with a uniform initial soil-moisture content of 0.005.

The one-dimensional model developed in this work was used to simulate infiltration

and redistribution for identical initial and boundary conditions. Soil parameters were updated

with the tabulated data search using the Rehevot sand soil hydraulic characteristics table

(Appendix C). Results were in excellent agreement with Rubin and Steinhardt (1963) and are

presented in Figures 5.3 and 5.4 in terms of soil water content profiles.





50-



300-







800- su --- This work
--- Gardner and Frean (1958)
SMoore (1939)
1050
0 -2000 -4000 6000 -8000

Pressure Head, i, (mm)


Figure 5.2. Simulated, analytical, and experimental results of steady-state evaporation
at a rate of 0.033 mm/hr from a water table in Yolo light clay.












50-
1.56 hrs
150
250 hrs
250-

350 4.38 hr-s


450
6.25 hrs

550

650 -- This work
r Rubin and Steinhardt (1963)
750 -
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.3'

Soil Moisture Content, 0

Figure 5.3. Simulated results of soil water content profiles for infiltration
into Rehevot sand under constant rain intensity of 12.7 mm/hr.








S50
150 0.66 hrs
150
1.00 hrs
S 250

E 350 66 hrs _


S 450 2.33 hrs ,-

550

550 -- This work

750
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.

Soil Moisture Content, 6

Figure 5.4. Simulated results of soil water content profiles for infiltration
into Rehevot sand under constant rain intensity of 47 mm/hr.







82
Warrick (1974) also solved the one-dimensional, steady-state moisture flow equation

using the matric flux potential to obtain a linearized form. He presented solutions for a

semi-infinite flow medium and a finite-depth medium overlying a shallow water table with

a flux surface boundary condition and arbitrary plant water withdrawal functions. He

assumed unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K(0), to be of the form


K(O) = Ke(ot) (5.35)


where K, is the saturated hydraulic conductivity and a is an empirical constant depending

on soil texture.

Warrick (1974) used an arbitrary soil with K, 4.17 mm/hr and a = 0.001 mm-' to

present numerical examples of his analytical solutions. One set of numerical results was

developed for a soil profile with a water table 1000 mm from the soil surface. The arbitrary

extraction function was set to 0 and surface fluxes of 0.0 mm/hr and 1.5 mm/hr were used.

Equation (5.35) and a linear soil-moisture release function were incorporated into the

one-dimensional model to allow comparison with Warrick's solutions. Steady-state pressure

head were simulated for identical boundary conditions and they were in excellent agreement

with the analytical solutions. Both solutions and are shown in Figure 5.5.

In order to evaluate the performance of extraction in the model, the simplest water

extraction function given by Warrick (1974) was chosen and coded into the model. This was

a constant sink term give by


S(z) = a (5.36)


where a is the constant extraction rate per unit length. The total soil profile water extraction

rate used by Warrick (1974) was 0.42 mm/hr (S=aL where L is the depth to the water table).

The numerical simulations were run to steady-state using the same conductivity

function and initial and bottom boundary conditions as before but with infiltration rates of

0.42 and 0.63 mm/hr. The results were in excellent agreement with the analytical solution

and are shown in Figure 5.6.

















E
E 400-
q,=0.0 mm/hr

S600-




This work
-- Warrick (1974)
1000
0 -200 400 600 -800 -1000


Pressure Head, (mm)

Figure 5.5. Simulated and analytical results of steady-state infiltration above
a shallow water table at rates of 0.0 and 1.5 mm/hr.


-200 -400 -600 -800 -1000


Pressure Head, "1 (mm)

Figure 5.6. Simulated and analytical results of steady-state infiltration
above a shallow water table with a constant extraction rate
of 0.42 mm/hr.


q,=0.63 mm/hr





q,=0.42 mm/I






This work
--Warrick (197


hr







4)








Two-Dimensional Model Development

The process of infiltration, redistribution, and extraction under line sources or closely
spaced emitters can be treated as a two-dimensional problem. The governing equation for

two-dimensional flow in a porous medium is


C()- -- K()- + [K(0) I S(') (5.37)
at ax L ax az I

where x represents the horizontal dimension along the x-axis and z represents the vertical

dimension along the z-axis.
As shown in Figure 5.7, the line source lies on the soil surface along the y-axis and

intercepts the x-z plane at the origin. The trickle discharge per unit length of the line source

is given by Q(t) in mms/(mm-hr).

Equation (5.37) was solved numerically with a Gaussian elimination implicit finite

difference scheme and explicit linearization of soil parameters. The flow domain was divided

into a mesh of rectangular cells having dimensions Ax, Az, and unity in the y direction. The

index i (i=l, 2, ..., I) was used to locate the cells in the x-direction with respect to the line

source, and j (j=l, 2,.... J) was used to number the cells in the vertical direction (Figure 5.7).
Horizontal flow in equation (5.37) is described by


K()-- (5.38)
ax L ax J J ax

The finite difference approximation of this equation was obtained by discretizing the right

hand side of equation (5.38) around i to obtain


i Wi+.j W i (5.39)
Lax ij Ax


Equation (5.39) was then substituted into equation (5.38) to give

















yl sou


line source


line of
symmetry


soil surface


Figure 5.7. Schematic diagram of the finite-difference grid system for the
two-dimensional model of water movement and extraction.


*s,------------------------------------------->


ij-1


i-l'j ij i+lj






i,j+l








K. [ [K i (5.40)


The derivatives of 0 with respect to x were approximated as

S- J iJ (5.41)
ax i+j Ax

] ij 'i-j (5.42)
ax i-j Ax

which when substituted back into equation (5.40) gave

^(r j11 r r '"111
1[Ki+u [ A ii- K iJ x J 1 (543)


Equation (5.43) represents the finite difference approximation of horizontal flow
through a porous medium. This equation was combined with the finite difference
approximation of vertical flow previously derived for the one dimensional model (equation
(5.7)) to produce the two-dimensional finite difference equation for flow through a porous
medium.





S on
CAx
At z [ Axz



[K I' " 1

j- S1j (5.44)
LKJ- A J] 5z










The equation was then rearranged so that the unknowns were on the left hand side and the


knowns were on the right hand side.



[K ~t Kn ,
Ax- Az/


C ij Ktfj + K KP+ K
+- + + - [ + i P+
L t Ax2 Az2~


oi+,lj -
[Ax2 AZ

c? K Kj+
= J + Si7
At Az

or in a more usable form


A + Bi,j ',j + Diji + E i,j + Eijj+J i = ij

where


K?,j-
Ai,j = --
AZ2

K"-

Ax2

C"
Di,j = Ai, Bi E,j Fj
At


SK"
Ei,j = -
Ax2


(5.45)


(5.46)





(5.47)



(5.48)



(5.49)




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs