
%0 Journal Article
%A Bridge, BJ 
%A Ross, PJ 
%T A portable microcomputer-controlled drip infiltrometer. II. Field measurement of sorptivity, hydraulic conductivity and time to ponding
%J Soil Research
%D 1985/09/01
%V 23
%N 3
%P 393-404
%K 
%R https://doi.org/10.1071/SR9850393
%U https://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SR9850393 
%X The lightweight portable drip infiltrometer described in Part I was used to determine the infiltration characteristics of a sandy loam soil. Sorptivity was determined by varying the application rate to maintain surface ponding and by measuring the time to ponding at a constant application rate. Saturated hydraulic conductivity was equated to the long-time steady-state application rate needed to maintain surface ponding. This rate could be determined to a precision of 0.5 µm s-1 (2 mm h-1) and agreed well with core data from 0.5 to 1.0 m depth in the profile. The results obtained were compared with ponded ring infiltrometer measurements. Sorptivities calculated from the ring infiltrometers were greater than those from the variable rate drip infiltrometer which in turn were greater than those from the constant rate drip infiltrometer. This was attributed to the effect of the macropores under the ponded rings and to confining the depth over which sorptivity was measured under constant application rate to the wetter surface soil. In dry soil, the drip infiltrometer measured low initial infiltration rates caused by poor wetting of the soil, but these were not measured by the ponded ring infiltrometers, which had a 50 mm head. In moist soil, poor wettability did not occur. Five equations for calculating sorptivity from measurements of time to ponding under a constant application rate of 8.3 µm s-1 (30 mm h-1) were used and four of these equations agreed within 20%. This was less than the range of sorptivities arising from uncertainties in determining the time to ponding, and the differences between the equations were attributed to the assumptions used in their derivation. It was concluded that any measurement of sorptivity on this soil was difficult to interpret because of non-uniformity in the upper soil profile. 
