No abstract

Accurate evaluation of the soil water reserves available for plant use is vital in developing optimum water management for crop production in marginally dry regions. Laboratory estimates of the upper and lower limits of soil water availability used to calculate the soil water reservoir often deviate significantly from the limits measured in the field. To make a unified and broad assessment of the accuracy of laboratory measurements for estimating field soil water, we obtained and evaluated a comprehensive data base of field‐measured upper and lower limits of the soil water reservoir. The field‐measured upper limit was taken as the water content at which drainage from a prewetted soil had practically ceased. The lower limit was taken as the water content of the soil at which plants were practically dead or dormant as a result of the soil water deficit. These field‐measured limits were compared to laboratory measurements at −0.33 and −15 bar made on samples removed from each field site. A total of 401 observations were available for the comparisons of −15 bar measurements to the field‐measured lower limits and 282 observations of −0.33 bar measurements were available for comparison with the field‐measured upper limit. Variation often existed within a soil series at a particular site for the field‐measured upper and lower limits. However, the differences between the field‐measured limits, the total available water reservoir, were relatively constant. Crop species caused only minor differences in the lower limit water content for the upper part of the soil profile where root length density was apparently above some critical limit. However, some annuals extracted water to greater depths than others. The laboratory estimates of the upper limit obtained by −0.33 bar water contents were significantly less than the field‐measured drained upper limit for sands, sandy loams, and sandy clay loams and were significantly more than field measurements for silt loams, silty clay loams, and silty clays. The laboratory estimates of the lower limit obtained by −15 bar water content measurements were significantly less than field lower limit measurements for sands, silt loams, and sandy clay loams and significantly more than field observations for loams, silty clays, and clays. Because our study included relatively few measurements of loamy sands, silts, sandy clays, and clays, it was difficult to generalize about differences in field‐measured and laboratory‐estimated water limits for those textures. The results suggest that if absolute accuracy is necessary in water balance calculations, laboratory‐estimated soil water limits should be used with caution and field‐measured limits, if available, would be preferred.

No abstract

No abstract

Pore sizes have traditionally been divided into macropores and micropores with the division between the two being arbitrary. Since most mixes used in container production are ≥ 80% pores by volume, a more detailed pore-fraction analysis seems warranted. Taking into account hydraulic properties and irrigation parameters, pore-size distribution curves were separated into four ranges. Macropores were selected as pore sizes > 416 µ. Pore sizes within the macropore range cannot hold water under tension induced by gravity when allowed to drain after saturation. Mesopores were selected as being in the pore size range of ≤ 416 to ≥ 10 µ. Micropores were categorized into the pore-size range of 0.2 to 10 µ. This would be equivalent to volumes of water held between 30 kPa and 1.5 MPa. The water in these pores may be viewed as a type of water stress "buffer" not commonly used under normal irrigations but extracted by plant roots when suctions exceed 30 kPa. Ultramicropores hold water at suctions > 1.5 MPa and would be found in pores with effective pore diameters < 0.2 µ. This water would be considered unavailable to plants. Data derived from this analysis were in good agreement with traditional measures of pore space and particle size distributions for peat-based, bark-based, and soilbased substrates.