An analysis of the effect of the vertical fissuring in mole-drained soils on drain performances

Youngs, E. G.

doi:10.1016/0378-3774(85)90040-x

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mole and gravel mole drainage are dependent on the establishment of a network of cracks and fissures, essentially soil macropores, connecting the soil surface to the mole channel (Galvin 1983(Galvin , 1985Youngs 1985;Robinson et al 1987). The development of such a cracking pattern allows water flow with little resistance compared with water moving through the soil itself (Goss et al 1983;Hallard & Armstrong 1992).…”

Section: Flow Variation Across Rainfall Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mole drain performance in a clay loam soil in Ireland

Tuohy

Humphreys

Holden

et al. 2015

Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is uncertainty regarding the suitability of some soils for mole drainage. Soils with questionable potential for the formation of stable mole channels generally have <45% clay and >20% sand, and gravel mole drainage is an alternative. However, this technique is unattractive due to its relative cost (2014 price: €1500-2800 ha −1 versus €125-300 ha −1 ). The performance of conventional mole drains and gravel mole drains was compared on a clay loam soil in the south of Ireland over 12 rainfall events. The installation dates of mole drainage treatments were staggered (January versus July) to assess how soil moisture status during installation affected performance. Treatments were (A) undrained control, (B) mole drainage installed in January 2011 (suboptimal), (C) mole drainage installed in July 2011 (optimal) and (D) gravel mole drainage installed in July 2011. Gravel mole drains were consistently more efficient in removing excess water than mole drains. Mean total drain flow (DF) during rainfall events was greater (P < .05, standard error 0.56 mm) in gravel mole drains (7.4 mm) than any mole drainage treatment irrespective of installation conditions (B [3.8 mm] and C [4.2 mm]). Initially, DF volumes exceeded overland flow (OF) in all treatments (Events 1-4, mean total OF was 0.47 [±0.08] of mean total DF). From Event 5 onwards, this relationship changed with OF being greater than DF (mean total OF was 2.02 [±0.41] of mean total DF). Results showed that across treatment replicates, the water table depth was consistently shallower in control plots. Mole drains were effective for a period of approximately 2 years. Although gravel mole drains were more effective, they were also subject to significant deterioration during the study. Installation conditions had no effect on mole drain performance. The results suggest that on this site conventional mole drainage repeated every 2 years could provide adequate drainage at low cost.

show abstract

Section: Flow Variation Across Rainfall Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mole drain performance in a clay loam soil in Ireland

Tuohy

Humphreys

Holden

et al. 2015

Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In wet clayey soil, smearing can occur when the mole is pulled through, which can prevent water entry into the moles, but friction forces between the bullet and the soil can cause cracking of the smeared surface of the mole. These cracks or fissures, created also by the shank to which the bullet is attached are important factors in mole drainage, especially near the mole (Leeds-Harrison et al, 1982;Youngs, 1985). Sommerfeldt et al, (1987) studied the bulk density distribution of soil around mole drains and also studied the smear and conditions at the surface of the mole.…”

Section: Soil Smearing Effects In Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seed furrow sidewall smearing by double disk openers

Iqbal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emergence rate index and percent emergence of com for first planting period (May-May 31), Experiment 2, (1995) Penetration resistance below seed level and in the sidewall at com emergence for first planting period (May 16-May 31), Experiment 2, (1995) Plant dry matter weight 42 days after planting for first planting period (May 16-May 31), Experiment 2, (1995) Mean seed deed depth for the three planting periods. Experiment 2, (1995) Temperature and precipitation data for the second planting period (June 15-June 30), Experiment 2, (1995) Summary of significance levels for analysis of variance for the effects of planting dates and couher treatments on soil and crop parameters for the second planting period (June 15-June 30), Experiment 2, (1995) Soil bulk density before planting and after emergence for second planting period (June 15-June 30), Experiment 2, (1995) Air permeability after planting for second planting period (June 15-June 30), Experiment 2, (1995) Emergence rate index and percent emergence of corn for second planting period (June 15-June 30), Experiment 2, (1995) Penetration resistance below seed level and in the sidewall at com emergence for second planting period (June 15-June 30), Experiment 2 (1995) Plant dry matter weight 42 days after planting for second planting period (June 15-June 30), Experiment 2, (1995) Temperature and precipitation data for the third planting period (July 31-Aug. 7), Experiment 2, (1995)

show abstract