2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.06.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Connectivity and percolation of structural pore networks in a cultivated silt loam soil quantified by X-ray tomography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
64
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 117 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
4
64
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, K s was only marginally affected in the two remaining samples (Babko, ). As also found by Jarvis et al () and predicted by percolation theory, the connectivity of the structural pore space in our data set decreases significantly as the imaged porosity decreases toward a threshold value for long‐range continuity (or percolation; Figure ). Furthermore, during saturation entrapped air will tend to collect in the larger pores (Sněhota et al, ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, K s was only marginally affected in the two remaining samples (Babko, ). As also found by Jarvis et al () and predicted by percolation theory, the connectivity of the structural pore space in our data set decreases significantly as the imaged porosity decreases toward a threshold value for long‐range continuity (or percolation; Figure ). Furthermore, during saturation entrapped air will tend to collect in the larger pores (Sněhota et al, ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The first assumption may be reasonable for many naturally structured soils, although some of our samples may not have met this requirement (e.g., the packed sands amended by organic matter and the natural sandy loam soils; Table ). With regard to the second assumption, it seems highly probable that for the size of our samples, the structural pore space imaged by X‐ray cannot be adequately described as the outcome of a spatially uncorrelated (random) arrangement of pore space (see the examples in Figures a–d; Jarvis et al, ). If these assumptions are not met, flow may be less localized than is envisioned in classical CPA (e.g., Bernabé & Bruderer, ; Friedman & Seaton, ; Skaggs, , ) and theoretical predictions of the relative electrical conductivity (effective porosity) and the coefficient G will be less reliable.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…() and Jarvis et al . (2017b) who showed that CT resulted in larger X‐ray resolvable porosities in samples taken closer to the soil surface. This was not the case for samples taken under natural vegetation (grass and herbs) where the X‐ray‐derived porosity was more constant with depth (Munoz‐Ortega et al ., ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The different height changes corresponding to samples of different bulk density can be attributed to less compaction because of reduced pore volume, surface densification by close‐packing of particles after aggregate collapse (Bedaiwy & Rolston, ), and hydraulic conductivity of each sample. However, natural macro pore conductivity (Jarvis, Larsbo, & Koestel, ) is disturbed due to the artificial compaction of the samples. This should be taken into account when comparing laboratory results to field conditions as soil hydrodynamics are dependent on unimpaired grown pore structures on an interaggregate level (Alaoui, Lipiec, & Gerke, ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%