Prediction of infiltration from soil hydraulic properties

Abstract

Field and laboratory infiltration measurements using infiltrometers have been the only methods of effectively determining the infiltration rates of soils. Infiltration is mainly controlled by soil hydraulic properties, especially the hydraulic conductivity. Due to the ease with which the saturated hydraulic conductivity can be determined, it is often preferred to the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity in hydrological studies. It is well known that, at saturation the steady state infiltrability controls the infiltration process. Thus, it is very clear that the saturated hydraulic conductivity  and steady state infiltrability  may be closely related in one way or the other, as suggested in some few studies, wherein functions have been developed to relate these two parameters. However, these functions are often site specific and do not always carry out accurately all the time. Determination of  can be tedious and time consuming, whereas  can be easily determined in the laboratory. The present study aimed to assess the predictability of a modified Philip’s equation by substituting  for . In this study, field infiltration measurements were conducted in two soil types under three different land use systems with a single ring infiltrometer. Field and laboratory hydraulic and hydrologic experiments were conducted on soils in a turf grass, an arable land and a pastureland in the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. Goodness-of-fit was used to compare the measured and predicted cumulative infiltration amounts from both  and . The results showed that there was a robust relationship between the measured and predicted cumulative infiltration amount values from the Philip’s and modified Philip’s equations, respectively for all three fields. However, the use of  in place of  produced the best outcome in all the study areas. Thus, substituting  for  in the Philip’s infiltration equation can better predict cumulative infiltration amount. The proposed modified Philip’s infiltration equation and the key parameters (i.e.,  and ) provide new understanding into the realistic flow processes in soil. Furthermore, the  in the new equation is very close to the measured .

Keywords

• Cumulative infiltration amount,manometer,saturated hydraulic conductivity,sorptivity,steady state infiltrability

References

1. Bonsu, M., Laryea, K.B., 1989. Scaling the saturated hydraulic conductivity of an Alfisol. European Journal of Soil Science 40(4): 731-742.
2. Breverton, T., 2009. Immortal words: History’s most memorable quotations and the stories behind them. Quercus Publishing, London, UK. 384p.
3. Clausnitzer, V., Hopmans, J.W., Starr, J.L., 1998. Parameter uncertainty analysis of common infiltration models. Soil Science Society of America Journal 62(6): 1477-1487.
4. Minasny, B., Cook, F.J., 2011. Sorptivity of soils. In: Encyclopedia of Agrophysics. Gliński, J., Horabik, J., Lipiec, J. (Eds.). Springer. Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp.824-826.
5. Elrick, D.E., Parkin, G.W., Reynolds, W.D., Fallow D.J., 1995. Analysis of an early-time and steady-state single ring infiltration under constant head and falling head conditions. Water Resources Research 31(8): 1883-1893.
6. FAO-UNESCO, 1988. Soil map of the world, 1: 5,000,000. Revised Legend. 4th draft.
7. Green, W.H., Ampt, G., 1911. Studies of Soil Physics, Part 1. The flow of air and water through soils. The Journal of Agricultural Science 4: 1-24.
8. Haghighi, F., Gorji, M., Shorafa, M., Sarmadian, F., Mohammadi, M.H., 2010. Evaluation of some infiltration models and hydraulic parameters. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 8(1): 210-216.

9. Hanks, R.J., Ashcroft, G.L., 1976. Physical properties of soils. Department of Soil Science and Biomet. Utah State University, Logan. USA. 127p.
10. Horton, R.E., 1941. An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration-capacity. Soil Science Society of America Journal 5: 399-417.
11. Jaynes, R.A., Gifford, G.F., 1977. The Philip equation: A feasible model for infiltration estimation on small rangeland watersheds? Completion Rep., Proj. JRN-22-1, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah Center for Water Resources Research, Utah State University, Logan, USA. 149 p.
12. Kelishadi, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R., Hajabbasi, M.A., Ayoubi, S., 2013. Near-saturated soil hydraulic properties as influenced by land use management systems in Koohrang region of central Zagros, Iran. Geoderma 213: 426-434.
13. Kostiakov, A.N., 1932. On the dynamics of the coefficient of water-percolation in soils and on the necessity for studying it from a dynamic point of view for purposes of amelioration. Transactions 6th Congress International Society for Soil Science Part A: 17-21.
14. Mbagwu, J.S.C., 1993. Testing the goodness of fit of selected infiltration models on soils with different land use histories. International Centre for Theoretical Physics. Trieste, Italy. Available at [access date: 13.06.2017]: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collectionNCLCollectionStore/_Public/25/043/25043561.pdf.
15. Mirzaee, S., Zolfaghari, A.A., Gorji, M., Dyck, M., Dashtaki, S.G., 2013. Evaluation of infiltration models with different numbers of fitting in different soil texture classes. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 60(5): 681-693.
16. Parhi, P.K., 2014. Another look at Kostiakov, modified Kostiakov and revised modified Kostiakov infiltration models in water resources applications. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4(3): 138-142.
17. Philip, J.R., 1957a. The theory of infiltration: 1. The infiltration equation and its solution. Soil Science 83(5): 345-358.
18. Philip, J.R., 1957b. The theory of infiltration: 4. Sorptivity and algebraic infiltration equations. Soil Science 84(3): 257-264.
19. Philip, J.R., 1957c. The theory of infiltration: 5. The influence of initial moisture content. Soil Science 84(4): 329-340.
20. Philip, J.R., 1969. Theory of infiltration. In: Advances in Hydroscience. Chow, V.T. (Ed.). Academic Press, New York, USA. pp. 215-296.
21. Prieksat, M.A., Kaspar, T.C., Ankeny, M.D., 1994. Positional and temporal changes in ponded infiltration in a corn field. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58(1): 181-184.
22. Skaggs, R.W., Huggins, L.E., Monke, E.J., Foster, G.R., 1969. Experimental evaluation of infiltration equations. Transactions of American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Paper No. 3425: 822- 828.
23. Skaggs, R.W., Khaleel, R. 1982. Infiltration. In: Hydrologic Modelling of Small Watersheds. Haan, C.T., Johnson, H.P., Brakenstek, D.L. (Eds). American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Michigan, USA. pp.121-168.
24. Smiles, D.E., Knight, J.H., 1976. A note on the use of the Philip infiltration equation. Soil Research 14(1): 103-108.
25. Su, N., 2010. Theory of infiltration: Infiltration into swelling soils in a material coordinate. Journal of Hydrology 395: 103-108.
26. Swartzendruber D., Youngs, E.G., 1974. A comparison of physically-based infiltration equations. Soil Science 117(3): 165-167.
27. Tuffour, H.O., 2015. Physically based modelling of water infiltration with soil particle phase. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, PhD. Thesis, Kumasi, Ghana.
28. Tuffour, H.O., Abubakari, A., Bashagaluke, J.B., Djagbletey, E.D., 2016. Mapping spatial variability of soil physical properties for site-specific management. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology 3(2): 149-163.
29. Tuffour, H.O., Bonsu, M., 2015. Application of green and Ampt equation to infiltration with soil particle phase. International Journal of Scientific Research in Agricultural Sciences 2(4): 76-88.
30. Tuffour, H.O., Bonsu, M., Khalid, A.A., Adjei-Gyapong, T., 2014. Scaling approaches to evaluating spatial variability of saturated hydraulic conductivity and cumulative infiltration of an Acrisol. International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge 2(5): 224-232.
31. Tuffour, H.O., Bonsu, M., Khalid, A.A., Adjei-Gyapong, T., Atakora, W.K., 2013. Evaluation of Spatial Variability of Soil Organic Carbon and pH in an Uprooted Oil Palm Field. Indian Journal of Applied Agriculture Research 1(1): 69-86.
32. Tuffour, H.O., Bonsu, M., Quansah, C., Abubakari, A., 2015. A physically-based model for estimation of surface seal thickness. International Journal of Extensive Research 4: 60-64.
33. Whisler, F.D., Bouwer, H., 1970. Comparison of methods for calculating vertical drainage and infiltration for soils. Journal of Hydrology 10(1): 1-19.
34. Wilding, L.P., 1985. Spatial variability: Its documentation, accommodation and implication to soil surveys. In: Soil Spatial Variability. Nielsen, D.R., Bouma, J. (Eds.). Pudoc. Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 166-194.
35. WRB, 2014. World reference base for soil resources 2014. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports 106. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. Available at [access date: 13.06.2017]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3794e.pdf
36. Youngs, E.G., 1968. An estimation of sorptivity for infiltration studies from water movement considerations. Soil Science 106: 157-163.