بررسی رابطه بین منحنی تراکم محصور و دامنه‌ رطوبتی با کمترین محدودیت

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد گروه خاکشناسی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا- همدان

2 دانشیار گروه خاکشناسی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا- همدان

3 دانشجوی پیشین کارشناسی ارشد گروه خاکشناسی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا- همدان

چکیده

دامنه رطوبتی با کمترین محدودیت (LLWR) از خصوصیات مهم خاک و شناسه­ای مناسب برای بررسی ساختمان خاک بوده که اندازه­گیری آن مشکل، وقت­گیر و پرهزینه است. مقاومت به تراکم خاک از جمله شاخص­­های نشان­دهنده مواد آلی، بافت، ساختمان و سایر خصوصیات خاک می­باشد که کنترل­کننده تراکم و مؤلفه­های آن وLLWR  می‌باشند. بنابراین بین LLWR و منحنی تراکم همبستگی وجود دارد، که تاکنون بررسی نشده است. اندازه­گیری منحنی تراکم محصور به­طور نسبی سریع و ساده است، بنابراین می­توان از پارامترهای آن برای برآورد LLWR استفاده کرد. در این تحقیق 24 نمونه خاک دست­خورده و دست­نخورده از استان آذربایجان غربی جمع­آوری و منحنی‌های نگهداری آب خاک، منحنی­های مشخصه مقاومت خاک و تراکم محصور آن­ها تعیین شدند. از بین مشخصه‌های خاک، نسبت سیلت به شن و مقادیر رس، کربن آلی، ظرفیت تبادل کاتیونی، کربنات کلسیم، میانگین وزنی قطر خاکدانه­ها و پارامترهای تراکم محصور برای برآوردLLWR  استفاده گردید. توانایی هریک از متغیرهای ورودی از جمله خصوصیات تراکم محصور، در بهبود تخمین  LLWRبه کمک مدل­های رگرسیونی ارزیابی شد. استفاده از پارامترهای تراکم محصور سبب بهبود تخمین LLWR گردید، چرا که بسیاری از ویژگی­های مؤثر بر تراکم محصور همان ویژگی­های تعیین‌کنندهLLWR  می‌باشند. مقادیر ضریب بهبود نسبی (RI) محاسبه شده برای توابع انتقالی خاک (PTF)ها در مکش 60 سانتی­متر برای PTF2،  PTF5و PTF7 به‌ترتیب 5/11، 7/19 و 53/28 درصد بود که نشان داد استفاده از خصوصیات منحنی تراکم محصور و سایر ویژگی‌ها به عنوان برآوردگر موجب بهبود قابل توجه تخمین‌ها شد. بنابراین می­توان LLWR را با دقت قابل قبولی (54/0=R2) با استفاده از پارامترهای منحنی تراکم تخمین زد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Relationship between Confined Compression Curve and Least Limiting Water Range

نویسندگان [English]

  • L Heidari 1
  • H Bayat 2
  • G Ebrahim Zade 3
چکیده [English]

Least limiting water range (LLWR) is one of the important characteristics of the soil and is a soil structure identifier with difficult, costly and time-consuming measurement. Resistance to soil compaction is an index of soil organic matter, texture, structure and other properties which controls, the compression and its components and LLWR. So there is a correlation between the LLWR and compression curve, which has not been investigated so far. Since, the measurement of the confined compression curve is relatively quick and simple, therefore it can be used to estimate the LLWR. In this study, 24 disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were taken from West Azarbayjan and their soil water retention curves, soil penetration resistance curves and confined compression curves were determined. The ratio of silt to sand, the clay content, organic carbon, cation exchange capacity, calcium carbonate, aggregates mean weight diameter and confined compression parameters were used to estimate LLWR. The ability of each of the input variables, including confined compression characteristics, in improving the estimation of LLWR using regression models was evaluated. Using the confined compression parameters improved the estimation of the LLWR, significantly. Because, many characteristics affecting the confined compression are the same ones determining the LLWR. Relative improvement (RI) values were calculated for pedotransfer functions (PTFs) in suction 60 cm were 11.5, 19.7 and 28.53 % for PTF2, PTF5 and PTF7, respectively which showed considerable improvements in the estimation of LLWR by using confined compression and other properties as predictors. So, LLWR can be estimated with acceptable accuracy (R2=0.54) using confined compression parameters as estimators.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Confined compression
  • Estimation
  • Least limiting water range
  • Pedotransfer functions
  • Soil water

مراجع

طهماسبی م، همت ع، وفائیان م و مصدقی م­ر، 1387. ارزیابی مقاومت تراکمی (تنش پیش­تراکمی) خاک با استفاده از آزمایش­های نشست صفحه­ای و فشردگی محصور. مجله علوم آب و خاک - علوم و فنون کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، جلد 12، شماره 44، صفحه­های 245 تا 255.
Akaike H, 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19:716-723.
Alexandrou A and Earl R, 1998. The relationship among the pre-compaction stress, volumetric water content and initial dry bulk density of soil. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 71: 75-80.
Baumgartl T and Koeck B, 2004. Modeling volume change and mechanical properties with hydraulic models. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68: 57-65.
Benjamin J, Nielsen D and Vigil M, 2003. Quantifying effects of soil conditions on plant growth and crop production. Geoderma 116: 137-148.
Bower CA, Reitemeier R and Fireman M, 1952. Exchangeable cation analysis of saline and alkali soils. Soil Science 73: 251-262.
Bruand A, 2004. Utilizing mineralogical and chemical information in PTFs. Developments in Soil Science 30: 153-158.
Bruand A and Tessier D, 2000. Water retention properties of the clay in soils developed on clayey sediments: Significance of parent material and soil history. European Journal of Soil Science 51: 679-688.
Busscher W, 1990. Adjustment of flat-tipped penetrometer resistance data to a common water content. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 33: 519-524.
Campbell GS and Shiozawa S, 1994. Prediction of hydraulic properties of soils using particle-size distribution and bulk density data. Pp. 317–328. In: van Genuchten MTh et al. (eds). Proceedings of the International Workshop on Indirect Methods for Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils. University of California, Riverside, USA.
Casagrande A, 1936. The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical significance. Pp 60-64. Proceedings of the international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering: Harvard University Cambridge.
Chan K, Oates A, Swan A, Hayes R, Dear B and Peoples M, 2006. Agronomic consequences of tractor wheel compaction on a clay soil. Soil and Tillage Research 89: 13-21.
Clement C. 1966, A simple and reliable tension table. Journal of Soil Science 17(1): 133-135.
Cui Y and Delage P. 1996. Yielding and plastic behaviour of an unsaturated compacted silt. Géotechnique 46: 291-311.
Da Silva A, Kay B and Perfect E, 1994. Characterization of the least limiting water range of soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:1775-1781.
Da Silva AP and Kay B, 1997. Estimating the least limiting water range of soils from properties and management. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61: 877-883.
Dexter A, Czyż E, Richard G and Reszkowska A, 2008. A user-friendly water retention function that takes account of the textural and structural pore spaces in soil. Geoderma 143: 243-253.
Dıaz-Zorita M and Grosso GA, 2000. Effect of soil texture, organic carbon and water retention on the compactability of soils from the Argentinean pampas. Soil and Tillage Research 54(1): 121-126.
Gee GW and Or D, 2002. Particle- Size analysis. Pp. 225-295. In: Warren AD, (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Inc.
Gompertz B, 1825. On the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London 115: 513-583.
Haise H, Haas H and Jensen L, 1955. Soil moisture studies of some Great Plains soils: II. Field capacity as related to 1/3-atmosphere percentage, and “minimum point” as related to 15-and 26-atmosphere percentages. Soil Science Society of America Journal 19: 20-25.
Håkansson I, Voorhees WB and Riley H, 1988. Vehicle and wheel factors influencing soil compaction and crop response in different traffic regimes. Soil and Tillage Research 11: 239-282.
Hamza M and Anderson W, 2005. Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil and Tillage Research 82: 121-145.
Horn R, 1981. A method for the determination of the preconsolidation load. Zeitschrift für Kulturtechnik und Flurbereinigung 22(1): 20-26.
Horn R, Richards BG, Gräsle W, Baumgartl T and Wiermann C, 1998. Theoretical principles for modelling soil strength and wheeling effects a review. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci 161: 333-346.
Husz G, 1967. The determination of pF-curves from texture using multiple regressions. (German) Z. Pflanzenernähr Düng Bodenkd 116: 23-29.
Hwang SI, Lee KP, Lee DS and Powers SE, 2002. Models for estimating soil particle-size distributions. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66: 1143-1150.
Keller T, Lamandé M, Schjønning P and Dexter AR, 2011. Analysis of soil compression curves from uniaxial confined compression tests. Geoderma 163: 13-23.
Koolen A, 1974. A method for soil compactibility determination. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 19: 271-278.
Mosaddeghi M, Hemmat A, Hajabbasi M and Alexandrou A. 2003. Pre-compression stress and its relation with the physical and mechanical properties of a structurally unstable soil in central Iran. Soil and Tillage Research 70: 53-64.
Nemes A and Rawls WJ, 2006. Evaluation of different representations of the particle-size distribution to predict soil water retention. Geoderma 132: 47-58.
Neyshabouri MR, Kazemi Z, Oustan S and Moghaddam M, 2014. PTFs for predicting LLWR from various soil attributes including cementing agents. Geoderma 226: 179-187.
Pereira J, Défossez P and Richard G, 2007. Soil susceptibility to compaction by wheeling as a function of some properties of a silty soil as affected by the tillage system. European Journal of Soil Science 58: 34-44.
Pirmoradian N, Sepaskhah A and Hajabbasi M, 2005. Application of fractal theory to quantify soil aggregate stability as influenced by tillage treatments. Biosystems Engineering 90: 227-234.
Richards L and Weaver L, 1943. Fifteen-atmosphere percentage as related to the permanent wilting percentage. Soil Science 56: 331-340.
Sims JT, Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Loeppert RH, Soltanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT and Sumner ME, 1996. Lime requirement, Pp. 491-515. In: Sparks DL, (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3-Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Inc.
Soane B and Van Ouwerkerk C, 1994. Soil compaction in crop production.  Elsevier, Amsterdam. Pp. 662.
Taylor HM, Robertson GM, Parker JJ, 1966. Soil strength– root penetration relations for medium to coarse-textured soil materials. Soil Science 102: 18-22.
Tejada M and Gonzalez J, 2006. The relationships between erodibility and erosion in a soil treated with two organic amendments. Soil and Tillage Research 91: 186-198.
Vaz CM, Bassoi LH and Hopmans JW, 2001. Contribution of water content and bulk density to field soil penetration resistance as measured by a combined cone penetrometer–TDR probe. Soil and Tillage Research 60: 35-42.
Walkley A and Black IA, 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil science 37: 29-38.
Wösten J, Pachepsky YA and Rawls W, 2001. Pedotransfer functions: bridging the gap between available basic soil data and missing soil hydraulic characteristics. Journal of hydrology 251: 123-150.
Yoder RE, 1936. A direct method of aggregate analysis of soils and a study of the physical nature of erosion losses. Agronomy Journal 28: 337-351.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار