f
y
' I:

O
K

\l‘xt’l‘;
I 1%: £311
5 .2. 33.2
L323323,
'\
a}
J ;- w
'1?!"
«5%,,
..‘e‘.¢

H

‘ r"'~."
M V
.i'
I.-

.x ,. . ,
u .AH .. _. ....u. .... a 1 ..
. .V- . ~ I!‘ ‘1 .l-
S C a: a i . . i a.
5. . Ru . _ ...x . . .... . 3.
a.“ \afi (~va 5.... M‘k M. n ”—0.. v
.. ’ Q. l
.1 T x C A , a a g ,.
o. [- .-lv . a... h . ‘..
.h‘... «kc Q fid- wv “3.!” x. ... 'uh Mm- ... 1W.
:1 ... r .V ... .. .... . ...
9.01.: «......d “IV. 3:3 .3... JR“ \ . (It.
. . a . I I
x. x Q am. st. . ...; .a C a. -.
Q‘ J. ‘09 .40\ lo (I. . .0. U
(I... . . x . 7v.
‘ .A p was. (MU . 2 s
r. . .. . 1.x ...2. .k 1 .
. .I \i 00’ .fi . ... 4 ,o '0” ‘ '3 .‘t.
:1. ..«5 xx ...; ». ... . . w. (x
. . . . .,. J. .
i z. x. ...: ”.... U. C .. -n
..- --u .. .1 J .... ... .. fl. ..
.: . 4 P“
Nuns. ....U Pia. f X r. . 1... . . .. IKW
.. . . ‘ kill sinus 3.\ a... C ‘
f.“ 0.: 53x 0. Ant \. ‘S.
...,I .. . It 0 I; .1“ f‘ .w
0.1... ”a?!“ \. L w m 1|-.. _. . (It
4....0 ....IL. I a .t. ”J1.” «.../- J. o O. '0
...)... IA “Cu «R 5d. ... .
.(‘ \.\ I. u. a... ...)...
'5‘ m? . Cw rq‘u .'.-J\.o
«...; ... .
”I" .“
o t

: =3: 2 _ 3:, a.

_ .

 

‘ T_'

r.

 

 

”THESIS

0-169

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
Some Relationships Between Permeability of

St. Clair, Miami, Hillsdale, and Coloma Soils and
the Water and Soil Losses under Different Cropping

and Tillage Practices
presented by

Antonio Rezende
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for
Master of §cience degree in Soil Science

45221221;

Major professor

Date

,

. . . I ‘., ‘_ J t» .
‘ I. ‘.l‘l‘,K‘.. h..\,0\, ‘..t(qf.g“A'fi1_bfi“J.‘ _"-‘

"-A.

 

 

 

SOME RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERMEABILITY OF ST. CLAIR,
MIAMI, HILLSDALE, AND COLOMA SOILS AND THE WATER
AND SOIL LOSSES) UNDER DIFFERENT CROPPING
AND TILLAGE PRACTICES

By

ANTONIO REZENDE
,._

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Soil Science

1951

 

THESIS

u ., pl!“'li:slz

' (.7

/ -

,. 41

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses special thanks to Dr. E. P.
Whiteside, who gave helpful guidance in the research
work.

Thanks are extended to Dr. A. E. Erickson for
assistance and counsel in the laboratory studies and
to Mr. C. A. Engberg and Mr. J. E. McKittrick for their
assistance in obtaining and interpreting records of the
Soil Conservation Service.

For the way the Soil Science Department is con-
ducted, providing ample opportunity to the students to
learn as much as they can, the author is grateful to
Dr. Lleyd M. Turk, Head of the Soil Science Department
of Michigan State College.

25590.1.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O I 0
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Climatic Factor of Erosion

The Topographic Factor . . . . . . . . . .
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Soil Factor of Erosion . . . . . . . .
The System of CrOpping . . . . . . . . . .
Some Properties of the Soils Inve estigated

SOILS INVESTIGATED . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Profile of St. Clair Silty Clay Loam
Profile of Miami Sandy Loam . . . .
Profile of Hillsdale Sandy Loam . .
Profile of Coloma Loamy Sand . . . .

SOIL AND "AER LOSSES O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0

Erosion Survey on St. Clair, Miami,
Hillsdale and Coloma Soils . . . . . .
Data from Erosion Demonstration Plots . .

Soil losses . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Water losses . . .

Distribution of rainfall and relation
to soil and water losses . . . . .

LABORATORY SOIL STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SMARY O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O

BIBLIO GRAPI-IY O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0

APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O

22
25

25
28

32
38

45
51
51+
57

INTRODUCTION

Soil erosion is a function of climate; topography;
the kind, vigor and density of the vegetation; and the
nature of the soil and its condition.

These factors affecting soil erosion may be expressed
in the equation: E = f(C, T, V, S).

It is difficult to evaluate each of these factors
exactly, because they are closely interrelated. When
two or more types of soils are studied in order to esti-
mate the influence of soil type on the degree of erosive-
ness, the intensity, the amount, and the distribution of
rainfall may not be similar, for two or more areas where
the experiments are located. Even the organic matter
content, the previous vegetation, and the management of
these soil types (type, time, and frequency of tillages
received) are sub-factors that make it difficult to eval-
uate the conditions of the soil types, when they are
compared so far as erosion is concerned.

There is no doubt that man has a very important
influence on erosion, because all the other factors may
have less effect on soil erosion if the land is wisely
managed. Under certain conditions, climate may be modi-
fied by irrigation that may affect soil cover, and in
turn may reduce runoff. The planting, and the cultiva-

tion time may lessen the effect of climate on erosion.

Topography cannot be changed as the farmer would
like, but a wise distribution of land use, through the
choice of crops and the possibilities of efficient use
of erosion control practices, can reduce water and soil
losses.

These variables result in higher or lower infiltra-
tion, and more compact or looser soils. If other factors
are equal, a higher soil infiltration capacity will
result in less soil erosion than lower infiltration
capacity. All factors being equal, a looser soil will
be more eroded than a more compact one.

It is erroneous to apply the same mechanical mea-
sures for surface runoff and erosion control to both per-
meable and impermeable soils. The rate of infiltration
of a soil and the conditions that affect it are impor-
tant in evaluating the amount of water impounded before
designing erosion control measures such as terracing,
contour cropping, and strip cropping.

The use of as many grass and legume crops as pos-
sible is needed to improve the 3011's fertility and its
permeability or water holding capacity. The better
effect of grass and legume meadows, compared to row
crops, on the soil is immediate and lasting due to the
greater water impoundage capacity, resulting from the

improved physical properties.

Based on both the infiltration and the impoundage
of water, the land use planner is able to determine the
best space between two terraces or two strips of close
growing plants.

For economical reasons, in some climatic zones of
the world, the farmers cannot practice crop rotation as
advisable. In these areas some of the most erosion con-
ducive crOps are the most economical to grow. Because
of this fact, the farmers must become aware of the harm~
ful effect of soil erosion and take steps toward diver-
sifying his system of cropping. Unless the farmers can
evaluate the damage of soil erosion and the effect of
different crops on water and soil losses, they will not
realize that a smaller income in one year may result in
a larger income in the near future, due to a crop rota-
tion system.

In this investigation, the author studied some
relationships between permeability of Saint Clair, Miami,
Hillsdale, and Coloma soils and the water and soil losses,
under different cropping and tillage practices.

Because of the complexity of the matter, there were
not sufficient experimental records to support a better
discussion of the author's research work. However some
conclusions were drawn and the research work will be use-
ful as a background for further investigations on the same

matter in the author's research on Brazilian soils.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Climatic Factor of Erosion

It has been shown (5, 17) that the amount and the
distribution of annual precipitation greatly influence
water and soil losses. A regular distribution of precip-
itation may cause little or no runoff, while concentra-
tion of precipitation in a short period of time generally
results in large water and soil losses.

A thick cover of show over a frozen soil, when the
thawing temperature comes may result in large water and
soil losses. The losses will be greater if the thawing
temperatures are accompanied by heavy rain.

The seasonal temperature affecting the growth of
plants, the organic matter content of the soil, and the
soil freezing in cold areas play an important role in
soil erosion.

Soils in the Southeastern part of the United States
are subject to greater soil and water losses annually
because the ground is seldom frozen, nearly all precipi-
tation falls as rain, the rains are more intense than in

the Northern part (5, l7).

The Topographic Factor

The degree of lepe has been shown as very important
in soil loss, but has little effect on percentage of
runoff (3).

The effect of the percentage of lepe (S) on erosion
(E) was shown by Borst gt al. (6) to vary with the soil
type and its moisture content: In dry Wooster silt loam,
for four and one-half inches of rainfall per hour, the
erosion was equal to 3.7381°48. ‘When wet, E = 4.5331‘58.
For Muskingum silt loam, when dry, E = 4.8431°3° and,
when wet, E = 8.2331‘22.

Investigation has shown that erosion varies uniformly
with slope up to 12% slope. Above 12%, the rate of ero-
sion increases very rapidly (6). Under some conditions,
greater slope has been found to increase rather uniformly
the amount of runoff. The percentage of slope has its
influence on erosion affected by the rainfall intensity,
as shown by Borst gt 2;. (6). The character of the soil
affects more its credibility than does the lepe (18).

On longer slopes, the soil loss is greater than on shorter

ones, but the percentage of runoff is less for longer

slope, as shown by Musgrave and Norton (28).

Vegetation

The type and amount of vegetation is probably the
most important single factor influencing runoff and
erosion (6). Soil losses have been negligible and run-
off has been materially reduced with good pasture soda
and meadow crops, regardless of steepness and length of
slope (5, 6).

Studies have shown (11, 28) that the presence of
vegetation itself is not a dominant factor in increasing
the infiltration capacity, ESE gs. The effect of vege-
tation in reducing runoff is more one of decreasing the
movement of surface water, and allowing more time for
infiltration. Musgrave (27) suggested the relationship:
Rainfall - infiltration = runoff + retention.

It is generally agreed (15, 19, 29) that the dense
mat of roots produced by grass sod promotes granulation
and good soil structure, while cultivation usually brings
about the Opposite effect.

Yoder (35) observed that cover crops act by filter-
ing out or holding in place large quantities of coarser
separates, or large water stable aggregates. The effec-
tiveness of cover crops in reducing sheet erosion is also
due to a reduction in mechanical dispersion by beating
rain, reduction of the amount, velocity, and the trans-

porting power of the runoff.

7

The conclusion of Yoder in relation to strip crop-
ping as a measure of control of erosion is that this
practice must be used to support terracing rather than
to replace it. Soil is sheet eroded in the non-protec-
tive strip and deposited in the close growing strips,
but part of the water runs on downslope.

The longer the time a soil remains covered by a
densevegetation which possesses abundance of roots,
more protected will be the soil against water and soil
losses, because the roots act as soil binders themselves
and when decomposed they will leave passageways for
water infiltration; and the decaying organic matter will
be a soil binding material as organic colloids (5).

Baver (3) classifies the major effects of vegetation
on soil erosion into five categories:

(1) interception of rainfall by the vegetative
canOpy;

(2) the decreasing of the velocity of runoff and
the cutting action of water;

(3) the root effects in increasing granulation
and porosity;

(4) biological activities associated with vege-
tative growth and their influence on soil
porosity;

(5) the transpiration of water leading to the dry-
ing out of the soil.

The Soil Factor of Erosion

So far as susceptibility to erosion is concerned,
it seems that the most important single quality inherent
in a soil is its dispersion ratio or the readiness with
which individual particles go into suspension in water
(1).

Middleton (25) conducted a series of determinations
on physical and chemical preperties of soils to find their
effects on soil erosion. He found as more important pro-
perties the dispersion ratio, the ratio of colloid to
moisture equivalent, and the erosion ratio.

Bouyoucos (7), studied the effect of the clay ratio
(the sum of sand and silt percentages divided by the per-
centage of clay) on erosion rates of several soil types.
He concluded that the clay ratio is a good indication of
soil erodibility. Usually the greater the clay ratio,
the greater the erosion ratio, which is

dispersion ratio
ratio of coiloidito moisture equivalent’

and more erosive the soil.

Lutz (22) found that Davidson clay soil has a higher
degree of flocculation of the colloidal fraction into
large and stable aggregates, while Iredell sandy clay
loam is more erodible due to its ease of dispersion and

low state of aggregation.

It has been shown (17) that erodibility of a soil
is greatly influenced by the stability of aggregates
and this stability is affected by the binding force of
the colloid it contains.

Many investigators (3: 5, 14) have shown the influ-
ence of soil permeability (the velocity of water flow
through the pore spaces) on its infiltration capacity, which
is the downward flow into the surface soil.

The gravitational water movement is many times hind-
ered by impermeable subsoil layers, which trap air as
well as water, but this movement is facilitated by the
penetration of worms and the activity of other animals,
and by the decay of roots, all of which leave passage-
ways (3. 19)-

The permeability due to gravitational forces in
natural soils has been shown to be a function of the size,
the amount and the continuity of the non-capillary pores,
which are determined mainly by soil texture, structure,
shrinkage or swelling, and biological channels (3).

The percolation and aeration in soils are more
dependent upon the size rather than the amount of pore
space, and not all soils, even those ofasame mechanical
composition, have the same sized pores (20).

Slater and Byers (31) observed that the field pas-

sageways, such as root channels or structural cleavages,

10
are more important than the character or volume of the
pore spaces in determining the percolation rate.

It has been suggested (2, 10, 13, 30) that the dif—
ferences in permeability of soils can be better under-
stood on the basis of the relative amounts of capillary
and non-capillary pores in the horizons of the profile.
The large size of the non-capillary pores is most ef-
fective in the movement of water into and out of the
soils.

Bouyoucos (8) determined the rate of infiltration
into Nappanee silt loam A, Brookston silt loam A, Miami
silt loam and Quartz sand, with 38, 25.5, 22 and 0 per
cent of colloids, respectively. The time in minutes
for 400 cc of water to pass through soil after initial
percolation was 16.09, 18.61, 19.27 and 1.48 reapec-
tively.

Bouyoucos (8) observed that the dominant influence
of coarse structure upon rapid percolation and good
drainage can be entirely overcome by a very small amount
of dispersed colloids, or other fine material, placed
in certain positions.

Baver (2) studying the percolation in various soils

established the relation: Permeability (rate of perco-

f[ amount of large pores 1
lation)= f[Tbrce necessary to displace water from the pores]

This means that permeability varies directly with the

11
content of large pores and indirectly with the force or
tension required to drain these pores.

Non-capillary porosity is defined (2, 3) in terms
of the size of pores that do not hold water tightly by
capillary forces. Consequently, the tension under

which a soil is drained may affect the non-capillary

porosity (3), as in the following examples:

   

Non- Percola-

 

pF at ca
pillary tion rate
3011 fiifit porosity cc/lo
p % minutes
Quartz sand (40-60) mesh 1.50 22.0 675
Quartz sand (20-40) mesh 1.25 22.0 1,216

 

For the same pF, 1.55, at the flex point, Genesee silt

loam-l gave non-capillary porosity of 14.fl% and Iredell
sandy loamrB gave 9.2%. The percolation rate in cc per
10 minutes was respectively 205 and 36. The rate of
flow of liquids varies as the fourth power of the sizes
of opening (12).

Lee (21) observed that porosity of earth materials
in the absence of substantial amounts of clay depends
principally upon the diversity of sizes of particles
and may vary from 17 per cent to #5 per cent or more,
while in clay or clayey material porosity depends

largely upon the degree of consolidation, and may reach

12
90 per cent in the case of flocculated sedimentation from
muddy fresh water streams discharging in salt water.

Baver (A) determined total pore space in core sam-
ples of different soils and found no large differences
in the total porosity between different textured soils
except as influenced by organic matter.

It is believed (10) that flocculation is a pre-
requisite for aggregation and hence for a good structure
that allows easy infiltration.

Bennett (5) pointed out that coarse organic matter
incorporated with a soil improves its structure, in-
creases size and amount of non-capillary pores, and
consequently the infiltration. He observed that muddy
water closes the soil openings when it is not well ag-
gregated.

Thorne and Peterson (32) believe that during the de-
composition of organic matter, microbes synthesize a
variety of gums, which when dried with the soil act as
strong binding agents, holding the particles together in
a water stable structure. The gum is decomposed by later
microbial activity; hence the importance of adding
organic matter to the soil frequently.

As discussed by Joffe (16), effective porosity,
so far as soil permeability is concerned, is a function
of mineralogical composition, organic matter, moisture,

structure, biological activities, and position in profile.

13
The System of Cropping

Experiments at Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station
have shown (29) that different plants and different
rotations have different effects on soil aggregation and
consequently on soil permeability. Among several rota-
tions of crops, the best, so far as aggregation is con-
cerned, was corn, oats, alfalfa-brome, alfalfa-brome,
and next best was a corn, oats, alfalfa rotation. So
far as air space porosity (non-capillary porosity) was
concerned, through the year, in first place came corn,
oats, alfalfa-brome, alfalfa-brome, and in second place
corn, oats, alfalfa, alfalfa. Bluegrass continuously,
and alfalfa continuously had higher non-capillary poros-
ity than other cr0ps or any rotation.

The rotations including grass and deep rooted leg-
umes, as alfalfa or sweet clover, are more efficient in
improving aggregation because the shallow rooted grass
improves the aggregation in the surface soil, while a
deep rooted legume increases aggregation in deeper lay-
ers. Continuous corn resulted in low percentage of
aggregation, low air space porosity and low yields. This
experiment showed that it is very important in the rotation
to maintain a good balance between soil-exposing plants
with soil-protecting plants, for the second group adds

more organic matter to the soil and gives a higher

l4
infiltration capacity to the soil which results in less
runoff and less erosion.

Experiments conducted in cooperation with 237 farm-
ers at different locations in Iowa (9), from 1942
through 1944, gave an increase in average yields of 6.2
bushels per acre for corn grown on the contour compared
with up and downhill cultivation. The average increase
for soybeans in contoured fields was 2.2 bushels per
acre.

Van Doren, Card, and Kidder (33), in experiments at
Dixon Spring, Illinois, obtained sixty per cent more
soil loss in up and down cultivation compared with con-
tour, for corn and oats. For soybean plots, the soil
loss in up and down cultivation was 4.6 times the loss
in contour. The increase in yields for contour compared
with up and down was 2.4, 2.0, and 2.6 bushels per acre,
respectively for corn, oats, and soybeans.

Musgrave (26) observed that a given treatment may
be effective in preventing runoff on one soil and inef-
fective for another soil of similar composition. A treat-
ment giving impoundage of one and one half surface inches
of rainfall may prevent erosion in Marshall silt loam,
but will not prevent erosion of Shelby silt loam, when a
rain of rare duration and intensity occurs. The in-
filtration of Marshall is 7 to 10 times more rapid than
that of Shelby.

15
It has been demonstrated (5) that the land use may
conserve or destroy the fertility of a soil and that a
wise distribution of craps and soil conserving practices
in accordance with the land capability is a thrifty
measure for the farmers individually, and collectively

for their country.
Some Properties of the Soils Investigated

According to Veatch (34), St. Clair has medium or-
ganic matter content and medium fertility; Miami in
general has relatively high fertility; Hillsdale is
medium in fertility, and Coloma has medium to low fer-
tility. According to several surveys, Miami has a
medium content of organic matter and Hillsdale is in
between Miami and Coloma, so far as the content of or-
ganic matter is concerned.

Lynd (23) reported a mechanical analysis of Coloma
from Southern Michigan, showing only 6.5 per cent of
particles less than 0.002 mm, and only 6.5 per cent of
particles between 0.002 and 0.05 mm. This soil has a
small percentage of water-stable aggregates, according
to Lynd (23), and approximately 1.56 per cent of organic
matter, and a low supply of available nutrients.

Mick (24) pointed out that the eluviated zones (A2)
of St. Clair and Miami are relatively low in fine

l6
separates, particularly fine clay, and that the illuviated
zones (B2) are relatively high in fine clay. The parent
material textures are intermediate between A2 and B2.
Mick observed that the fine clays have been produced and
dispersed as a result of soil-forming processes, and
that they were then transported downward, under favor-
able conditions of pore size distribution and drainage,

to precipitate or flocculate in the B2 horizon.

SOILS INVESTIGATED

The St. Clair, Miami, Hillsdale and Coloma soils
were chosen for investigation because they have developed
from parent materials widely different in texture, on
similar slopes, and there were runoff and erosion data
from experimental plots located on these soils. Repre-
sentative soil profiles were studied at each site in a
pit dug for that purpose and each is described below.
St. Clair profile, the one formed from the finest tex-
tured parent material, is described first and the Coloma
soil, formed from the coarsest parent material, is de-
scribed last. This order is followed in all subsequent

discussions and tables.
Profile of St. Clair Silty Clay Loam

Locality: Central Lapeer Soil Conservation District,

Michigan.
Slope: 9%.
'Horizon: Al.
Depth: 0-6".

Properties: Silty clay loam to clay loam. Grayish brown ~
(10 YR 5/2)* mixed with some gray (10 YR 5/1) .
Fine granular to fine blocky. Aggregates
from.3/8 to 3/4 of an inch in diameter.

 

* The color names and notations are those used in
the Munsell $011 Color Charts, distributed by the Munsell
Color Company, Inc., Baltimore 2, Maryland. All colors
are for moist samples except the Miami profile which was

air dry.

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

18

B1.

6.10” e

Silty clay loam to silty clay. Dark gray-
ish brown (10 YR 4/2.5 to 5/3) with some
brown 10 YR 5/3; 10% and dark yellowish
brown 10 YR 4/4 20%. (Occasional sandy
loam pockets at this depth were dark yel-
lowish brown [10 YR 4/4]. This layer is
from 6 to 16 inches deep on one side of the
pit. Core samples were not taken of this
material.) Coarse nuciform structure. Ag-
gregates from 3/4 to 2 inches in diameter.

B2.

10-17".

Clay. Dark grayish brown (10 YR 4/2).
Fine blocky structure.

C.

17-23" 0

Cla . Weak red to reddish brown (2.5 YR
4/3? with some lighter weak red (2.5 YR
5/2 . Coarse blocky. Aggregates from 1/2
to 1-1/2 inches in diameter. Calcareous.

D1.

23—26".

Silty clay loam. Brown (10 YR 5/3) with
about 30% of yellowish brown (10 YR 5/6).
Massive structure (no particular cleavage).
Calcareous.

D2.

26'29" 0

Sandy loam. Dark yellowish brown (10 YR
4/4). Non-calcareous.

D3.

29"".

Clay loam. Reddish brown (5 YR 5/4) .
Calcareous.

The depth to the top of D Horizon varies from 23 to 32

inches in the pit. Some stones are present in all hori-

zone 0

Profile

Locality:
Slope:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

19

of Miami Sandy Loam (mapped as Miami loam)

Fenton Soil Conservation District, Michigan.

7%.

Al.

0'6" 0

Sandy loam. Dark gray to dark grayish
brown (10 YR 4/l.5). Weak platy structure.

A2.

6-10".
Sandy loam.
YR 5/3.5).

B2.

10‘22" 0

Sandy clay loam.
Blocky Structure.

Brown to yellowish brown (10
Nuciform structure.

Yellow red (5 YR 5/6) .

Cl.

22-28".

Sandy clay loam. Dark brown (7.5 YR 4/2).
Coarse blocky structure. Calcareous.

C2.
28"+.
Sandy clay loam.

Grayish brown to brown (10 YR
5/2.5).

Coarse blocky structure. Calcareous.

All horizons contain a few stones.

Locality:

Slope:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Profile of Hillsdale Sandy Loam

St. Joseph River 8011 Conservation District,
Michigan.

6%.

Al.

0‘8“.

Sandy loam. Dark brown (10 YR 4/3). Weak
fine to median granular structure, with ag-
gregates from.l/l6 to 1/4 of an inch in
diameter.

Horizon:
Depth:
Pr0perties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Some stones

Locality:

SlOpe:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

20

A2.

8-12".

Fine sandy loam. Yellowish brown (10 YR
5/4), with a few dark reddish brown coatings
(5 YR 3/2). Weakly developed coarse gran-
ular to fine nuciform structure, with ag-
gregates from 1/4 to 1 inch in diameter.

Bl.

12*19"e

Fine sandy loam. Dark brown (7.5 YR 4/4).
Poorly developed nuciform structure, with
aggregates from 3/8 to 1-1/2 inches in diam-
eter, and quite a few dark reddish coatings
(5 YR 2/2).

B2.

19-37".

Sandy clay loam. Dark brown (7.5 YR 4/4) with
brown (10 YR 5/3) coatings. Moderately de-
veloped nuciform structure, with aggregates
from 1/2 to 1-1/2 inches in diameter.

B3.

37-48".

Sandy clay loam. Light brown (7.5 YR 6/4)
with dark brown (7.5 YR 3/2) coatings. Weakly
developed nuciform structure, with aggregates
from 1/2 to l-l/2 inches in diameter.

C.

48"+.

Sand, about 70%, yellowish brown (10 YR
5/4) and about 30% loamy sand, weakly
cemented, dark brown (7.5 YR 4/4).

in all horizons.

Profile of Coloma Loamy Sand

St. Joseph River Soil Conservation District,
Michigan.

6%.
Al.
0-8".

Loamy sand. Dark grayish brown to dark brown
(10 YR 4/2.5 to 5/3). Weak granular structure.

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Horizon:
Depth:
Properties:

Some stones

in all

21

A2.

8" 18" e

Loamy sand. Yellowish brown (10 YR 5/4).
Weak granular structure.

B1.

18-25" 0

Loamy sand. Strong brown (7.5 YR 5/6) with
dark reddish brown (5 YR 2/2) coatings.
Weak nuciform structure, with aggregates
from 1/4 to 1 inch in diameter.

B2.

25-38".

Loamy sand. Strong brown (7.5 YR 4/6).
Weak to very weak nuciform structure.

C.
38"+.
Sand.

Strong brown (7. 5 YR 5/6) .
grain

Single
structure.

horizons.

SOIL AND WATER LOSSES

Erosion Survey on St. Clair, Miami, Hillsdale
and Coloma Soils

The Soil Conservation Service of the U. S. D. A. has
made soil surveys on many farms in each of the above men-
tioned Districts. In those surveys, the soil erosion was
classified into five classes as follows: (1) little or
none; (2) slight; (3) moderate; (4) severe; and (5) very
severe or destroyed land. The slopes were grouped into

the following classes:

 

Central Lapeer Fenton St. Joseph
75 95
A 0-2 0-2 0-2
B 2-5 2-6 2-4
0 5-10 6-12 4-8
D 10-15 12-20 8-13
E ' 15-25 20-30 13-20
F 25-35 30 and over 20-30
C 35 and over 30 and over

m

Table I shows the acreages of the different erosion
classes on B and C slopes of the cropland on the four
soils studied in the different districts. The percent-

age of each erosion class on each slope is also tabulated.

 

23

ACREAGES OF EROSION CLASSES IN B AND C SLOPES IN CROPLAND AND TOTAL AREA, OF ST. CLAIR, MIAMI, HILLSDALE AND COLOMA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN CENTRAL LAPEER, FENTON, AND ST. JOSEPH SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, MICHIGAN**
. iErosion B7Slope IC=§1ope ‘T3?§I=6I
Land Use Soil Series District Class Acres % Acres % Class
I ‘53.9 75.6 2.0 1.7 302.7
Cropland St. Clair Central Lapeer 2 27.0 24.4 98.0 84.3 156.9
3 - - 16-2 13-9 111.9
.12 Total 110.9 19.4% 116.2 *20.3* 571.5
‘1 301.0 55.0 11.6 4.1 664.9
Cr0pland Miami Central Lapeer 2 217.9 42.0 249.2 87.8 628.5
3 - - 23.1 8.1 163.3
__3 Total 515.9 35:63" 253.9 19.43 1,456.7
l 411,14U.O w50.1 125.0 2.0» lb,2bB.O
2 lO,627.0 47.9 4,779.0 77.7 16,971.0
Cropland Miami Fenton 3 407.0 1.8 1,217.0 19.7 3,631.0
4 3.0 0.01 37.0 0.6 280.0
5 ~ -, r A“ 17-0
‘TOtal 22,177.0 59.b* b;I55.0 lb.5¥7 37,107.0
1 205.5* 77.5 26.3 *16.0 535.1
Cropland Hillsdale Central Lapeer g 60:5 22:5 132:2 8%:2 §§§I§
5 - - - - 3-9
ITotal 209.0 727.1* fiIb4.6 *Ib.b* 991.9
1 532.0 36.5. 23.0 5.5- 774.0
Cropland Hillsdale Fenton g 8§Ezg 5;:8 366:8 33:5 1’3%§:8
4 - - ~ - 3.0
Total 1,444.0 02.0* ‘400.0 17.0* 2,300.0
1 151.0 56.5- 50.0 45.0w .
Cropland Coloma Fenton 2 138.0 43.2 61.0 55.0 339.0
3 1.0 0.2 - — A 9.0
_3 Total 320.0 50.3* 111.0 17.4* 035.0
1* 53.5 23.2. - ~ . .
2 126.8 55.1 62.8 58.8 288.2
Cropland Coloma St. Joseph 3 47.7 20.7 42.6 39.9 105.5
4 2.2 0.9 1.4 1.3 8.5
5 - - ~ - 1.3
Total 230.2 46.5* “106.5‘ 21.7* 491.5
1 57.5 20.8- 2.1 2.3- 127.0
2 142.3 51.6 35.0 38-0 336-3
Orchard Coloma St. Joseph 3 75.5 27.4 54-4 59-1 141-1
4 0.5 0.18 0.5 0.54 2.3
5 0.2 0.07 - - 0.2
Total 276.0 45.47?"“ 92.0 15.15if 606.9

 

* Percentage of total area (all s10pes) in B or C slope.

 

 

** From records of the Soil Conservation Service, U. S. D. A.

24
It is apparent that erosion has been more active on the
C slope than on B slope of all the soils, in all of the
districts. In the Lapeer and Fenton districts, the per-
centage of l erosion on B slape relative to the percentage
of l erosion on C slope decreases from the St. Clair to
the Coloma soil, indicating that the effect of greater
slope on erosion is greatest on the soils derived from
heaviest textured parent materials and least on the
soils derived from the coarsest textured tills. However,
the erosion has been much greater on the Coloma soil in
the St. Joseph River District than on the Coloma soil
in the Fenton District.

The Orchards on Coloma soil in the St. Joseph River
District are more eroded than the cropland on similar
slopes. This difference in 1and.use between these two
districts accounts in part for the greater erosion in the
St. Joseph River District, but the difference in Judg-
ment of the surveyors estimating the amount of erosion
in the two areas may also be a factor.

Table I would be more significant if it were known
how many years these soils were under cultivation, the
cropping system, the crops raised, and other facts that
certainly affected the degree of erosion on each slope
class. The differences in percentage of slope, in Cen-

tral Lapeer, Fenton and St. Joseph River Soil Conservation

25
Districts, for B and C classes, make more difficult the

comparisons on the erodibility of these soils.
Data from Erosion Demonstration Plots*

Soil losses

 

Among the four soils studied, average annual soil
losses increased from the St. Clair to the Coloma soil, as
is evident from the comparison of Tables II, III and IV.
This trend in soil loss on these soils is the reverse of
the trend in the proportion of rainfall lost by runoff, dis-
cussed in the next section. Apparently, the easier detach—
ment of the soil particles on the coarser textured soils per-
mits the smaller amount of runoff water to cause more erosion
on these soils than in the heavier textured soils. Wind is
also probably more effective in eroding the sandier soils.
The short duration of the records of the soil losses
on three of the four soils, the differences in the slopes,
and the wide separation of the plots leave many doubts
concerning the value of these figures, in estimating the
relative erodibility of these soils. However, they do show
that contour cultivation gave less erosion than up and down
hill cultivation on each soil. Sod crops gave less erosion
than corn on all plots. Oats were less effective than sod
crops but usually more effective than corn, in decreasing

soil losses.

 

* From records of Soil Conservation Service of U. S.
D. A.-

26
TABLE II

SOIL LOSS. IN TONS PER ACRE, ON ST. CLAIR SILT CLAY
LOAM, ON A 9% SLOPE 72 FEET LONG, IN THE CENTRAL
LAPEER SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT. FROM JUNE
15, 1944 TO DECEMBER 31. 1945, UNDER CROPS
CULTIVATED UP AND DOWN THE SLOPE OR ON
THE CONTOUR

   

Up and Down Contour

 

 

Corn Oats Meadow Corn Oats Meadow

 

 

12/31 2.22 1.80 0.150 1.50 0.45 0.200

 

1/1
to ,
1946 '

 

Annual
Average 2.921 1.759 0.238 1.106 1.177 0.157

 

* Unexpected result: Higher loss in cats than corn
on contour. This may be accounted for by a poor stand
of cats in the contour plot in 1946.

TABLE III

27

SOIL LOSS, IN TONS PER ACRE, ON MIAMI SANDY LOAN, ON A
E; SLOPE 72 FEET LONG. ON THE BURTON STREET FARM:

 

FENTON SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, MICHIGAN,
FROM APRIL 1, 1942 TO APRIL 1, 1949,

UNDER CROPS CULTIVATED UP AND DOWN

THE SLOPE OR ON THE CONTOUR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year and Up and Down Contour
Rainfall Corn Oats Meadow Corn Oats Meadow
ggjgg 6.55 2.20 0.030 1.95 0.075 0.013
23:22 3.95 4.624 0.075 0.70 2.0004 0.075
43:42 1.75 0.10 0.050 0.10 0.075 0.050
ggjgg 6.05 2.15 0.100 1.35 0.050 0.050
23:46 3.05 1.47 0.150 0.60 0.700 0.100
3%??? 1.40 1.50 0.150 0.10 0.050 0.150
32:83 7.25 2.350 0.400 3.59 0.500 0.020
Average 4.285 2.057 0.136 1.198. 0.492 0.065

 

* Higher losses than in corn plots because the cats
plots had little cover on the soil in May, 1943 (when
the corn plots were still in sod, not plowed yet). A
rainfall of 2.16 inches fell in one day, and 7.55 inches
fell during that month.

28
TABLE IV

SOIL LOSS, IN TONS PER ACRE, ON HILLSDALE AND COLOMA
SOILS, ON 6% SLOPE 72 FEET LONG, UNDER CORN,
CULTIVATED UP AND DOWN THE SLOPE OR ON THE
CONTOUR, AND SOD, FROM JUNE 1, 1938 T0
JANUARY 1, 1941, IN ST. JOSEPH RIVER
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN
Total Loss Annual Loss*
Soil Up _ UP -
and ggfir Sod and ggflr Sod
Down Down
Hillsdale 55.0 24.0 0.0 21.29 9.29 0.0
Coloma 59.0 43.0 0.05 22.83 16.64 0.019

* Calculated considering thirty-one months, although
a greater number of months when erosion is more severe
have more weight. As a general practice, meadow and oats
plots did not receive cultivation. The meadow was a mix-
ture of red clover and smooth brome grass or timothy.

Water losses

Tables V, VI, VII and VIII give the water lost by
runoff from the St. Clair, Miami, Hillsdale and Coloma
soil plots, during short periods. More representative
data were not available.

While these data are too scant and incomplete to
warrant concise conclusions they indicate that the pro-
portion of the rainfall lost as runoff from these soils
when crapped to corn decreases from the Miami soil devel-

Oped from moderately fine textured parent material to the

29
TABLE V

WATER LOST IN RUNOFF, AS PERCENTAGE OF RAINFALL, ON
ST. CLAIR SILT CLAY LOAM, IN THE LAPEER
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT

     

Up and Down Contour

 

 

Corn Oats Meadow Corn oats Meadow

 

8/14 10.8 5.9 2.7 5.4 2.7 5.4*

 

6/17
6738 87.0 73.0 12.0 61.0 52.0 0.0
1946**

* Unexpected and unexplained result.
** 4.05 inches of rainfall.

TABLE VI

RUNOFF AS PERCENTAGE OF RAINFALL AND SOIL LOSS IN TONS
PER ACRE, FROM MIAMI SANDY LOAM, ON A 7% SLOPE 72
FEET LONG, UNDER DIFFERENT CULTIVATION
PRACTICES AND CROPS. IN THE FENTON
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT:
MICHIGAN

     

Up and Down Contour

 

 

 

 

Corn Oats Meadow Oats Meadow
Runoff (I) 40.gg - 28.30 34.50 16.50
3011 Loss 12. - 0.05 3.40 0.04
Runoff (II) 53.08 38.10 — 35.60 15.20

     

. ... ._ _ — ....

71) From 4/2/69 .03226246L RSinfall: é1.i§¥.
II) From 4/3/40 to 4/18/41. Rainfall: 23.04".
Corn was not crapped in contour at that time.

  
 

$011 L088 22.16 4.34 - 2.70 0.02

30
TABLE VII

RUNOFF IN PERCENTAGE OF RAINFALL FROM ST. JOSEPH RIVER
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, MICHIGAN, ON 6% SLOPE
0F HILLSDALE AND COLOMA SOILS, CROPPED T0 CORN
UP AND DOWN OR IN CONTOUR, AND SOD, FROM
JUNE 1, 1938 T0 JANUARY 1, 1941
(RAINFALL AND RUNOFF FOR FEB-
RUARY, MARCH, APRIL AND MAY,
1939, NOT MEASURED)

 

 

Total Up
Soil Rain- and Contour Sod
Fall Down
Hillsdale 66.19" 20.0 10.0 1.0
00101118. 65099" 1007 700 104
W
TABLE VIII

PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL RUNOFF AND TOTAL SOIL LOSS THAT
OCCURRED IN JUNE, JULY, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER OF
1938 AND 1939: FOR CONTOUR CULTIVATION
PLOTS 0N HILLSDALE AND

 

 

COLOMA SOILS

W

Soil June July August September Total
Hillsdale

Runoff 42 13 23 7 86

Soil Loss 57 l 16 2 86
Coloma

Runoff 42 2 50 1

Soil Loss 61 1 37 1

33

   

31
Coloma soil develOped from coarse textured parent mater-
ial. This trend is the same whether the corn was culti-
vated on the contour or up and down the slope. A simi-
lar trend is apparent on the sod and meadow plots with
the exception of the sod on the Coloma soil, Table VII,
which shows a little greater water loss than on the
Hillsdale. Perhaps here the lower fertility and lower
moisture holding capacity have resulted in a less vig—
orous growth of the sod cover than on the soils derived
from heavier textured parent materials. The data on the
runoff from the St. Clair soil are too sketchy to per-
mit even tentative conclusions as to the runoff relative
to the other soils. However, the projection of the
above mentioned trends on water loss from the soils rela-
tive to the texture of the parent materials would lead
one to expect the loss of greater proportions of the
rainfall from the St. Clair soil than on the other soils
under similar conditions, since it is derived from finer
textured parent material.

The data on the effectiveness of the up and down
hill or contour cultivation and different crops in con-
trolling the water losses from these soils, Tables V,
VI, VII, and VIII are undoubtedly much more reliable
than the above relationships between the different soils.

The plots on a given soil are grouped in a small area

32
where the rainfall amounts and intensities would be more
uniform and the data were obtained on all plots during
the same period of time. Plots in corn cultivated up
and down the slope lost larger proportions of the rain-
fall by runoff than plots in cats, or sod and meadow.
Contour cultivation decreased the prOportion of rainfall
lost by runoff on the plots in both corn and oats. Sod
or meadow crops were more effective than the corn or
cats in decreasing the proportion of the rainfall lost
by runoff.

Distribution Of rainfall and
relatIOn to soil and’waterIlosses

Tables IX and X show the distribution of rainfall,
its intensity, and the runoff and soil losses on Miami
sandy loam, at Burton Street Farm, from.April, 1939, to
April, 1940, and from April 3, 1940, to April 18, 1941,
respectively.

Table XI shows the monthly distribution of rainfall
during two years, at these plots. Table XII gives the
results of measurements on Hillsdale and Coloma soils
during a rain on June 21, 1939, in the St. Joseph River
Soil Conservation District of Michigan.

On the average, the heaviest monthly soil loss
occurs in June, due to relatively high amounts and in-

tensities of precipitation, combined with little soil

33
TABLE IX

DISTRIBUTION OF RUNOFF AND SOIL LOSS, ON MIAMI, ON A 7% SLOPE 72 FEET LONG, UNDER CORN,
WITH UP AND DOWN CULTIVATION, FOR APRIL 1, 1939 TO APRIL 1, 1940

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Precipitation Runoff Soil Loss
Maximum
Date Intensity Per Tons
Inches 5 Minute Inches Cent Pounds Per
PeriOd Acre
Inches/Hour

April 2—6-7—5 0.17 - - — - -

11 0.98 0.36 * * *

15 0.49 - — . - -

17-18 1.13 0.60 0.25 22.1 — -

__> 19-20—22 0.46 — — - _
May 9—10 1.51 2.40 0.15 9.9 0.29 0.01

16 0.04 - ~ - —
20-21-22 0.24 ~ — - - _
27-28 0.20 - - — -

June 5 2.34 4.05 1.35 57.7’ 96.04 4 50

10 0.52 — — — - -
11 0.88 3.60 0.82 58.6 35.63 1.78

10-16-20 0.24 - - - — -
22-23 0.79 1.56 0.35 44.3 18.28 0.91
29-30 1.04 3.08 0.50 65.0 49.95 2.50
Jfily 4 0.60 1.20 ‘0.23 35.3 10.46 0.52
Afigust 9 0.62 2.64 0.16 25.5 7.60 0.35
14 0.63 1.92 0.27 42.9 14.74 0.74
September 5 1.00 2.40 0.57 57.0 15.65 0.75
13 0.72 0.48 0.13 18.1 1.40 0.07
DCtOber 11 0.61 0.96 0.16 26.2 1.90 0.09
25-31 a November 2—7 0.77 1.20 0.04 5.2 0.68 0.03
January 14 0.94 0.24 *0.15 16.0 0.49 0.02
Egroh 29 3.97¥¥”‘ 1.20 3.35 55.1 . 2.62 0.13
Total 21.19“ 8.54 40.30 255.76 12.76

 

* 0.40 inches rain fell before it turned to snow, snowing 0.58 inches. The ground had lost all of its frost and was
drying out. This condition allowed the rainfall to be absorbed. The slow melting Of the following snow also allowed it to

be absorbed by the ground.

** The runoff on March 29 came from an accumulation of snow and rain frozen in the ground.

 

 

 

 

34

TABLE X

DISTRIBUTION OF RUNOFF AND SOIL LOSS, ON MIAMI, ON A W% SLOPE 72 FEET LONG, UNDER CORN,
WITH UP AND DOWN CULTIVATION, FROM APRIL 3, 1940 TO APRIL 18, 1941

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Precipitation Runoff Soil Loss
Maximum
Date Intensity Tons
Inches 5 Minute Inches Pert Pounds Per
Period Cen Acre
Inches/Hour
April 3 0.24 low
8 0.72 1.20
23 0.39 0.36
May 8 0.64 1.68
22 0.52 0.60 /
June 6 0.77 1.20
13 2.54 4.32 1.46 57.5 60.44 3.02
26 1.75 2.16 0.62 35.4 8.99 0.45
28 0.77 1.20 0.02 3.2 0. 6 0.03*
July 17 0.32 1.28 0.06 18.7 2.03 0.10
25 0.36 1.32 ~ - - -
August 8 0.93 0.96 0.20 21.5 5.20 0.26
14 2.03 7.20 1.26 77.1 227.71 11.38
26 3.05 0.96 1.58 48.5 58.76 3.94
October 18 1.49 2.40 0.45 30.2 10.47 0.5?
November 13 0.85 - 0.07 8.2 1.19 0.59
November 14 to January 3 2.32 — 2.52** 108.6 3.77 0.19
January 3 to April 18, 1941 3.35 - 3.6840.6 109.8 33.37 1.67
Total 23.04 11.92 51.73 412.59 22.15

 

* Results out of proportion. Evidently a leak in plot.
** Snow accumulation and thawing.

 

35
TABLE II
MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF RAINFALL, IN INCHES, 0N BURTON

STREET FARM, FENTON SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
FROM APRIL, 1941, TO MARCH, 1943

   

 

1941 1942 1943
January 1.84 1.35
February 0.54 0.95
March 3.50 2.30
April 1.82 1.00
May 1.60 2.70
June 3.08 3.77
July 1.02 3.78
August 2.65 2.98
September 1.31 1.32
October 5.15 3.25
November 1.92 2.90
December 1.42 2.35

 

Total from.April, 1941, to March, 1942: 25.85 inches.
Total from.April, 1942, to March, 1943: 28.65 inches.

coVer when the plants are small, and cultivation is in
progress. In June, the soil is saturated by rains of
May, the impact of which reduces the infiltration capa-
city of the soil. The first rains that come after seed-
bed preparation, in May, meet a loose soil, and are ab-
sorbed in great amounts.

In the second half of May there is heavy soil loss

when frequent and intense rains occur. The heaviest soil

36
TABLE XII

RESULTS FROM RAIN OF JUNE 21, 1939, ON HILLSDALE AND
COLOMA SOILS, 6% SLOPE 72 FEET LONG, IN ST. JOSEPH
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, MICHIGAN, UNDER
CORN CULTIVATED UP AND DOWN THE SLOPE
0R ON THE CONTOUR, AND ON SOD

 

 

 

 

 

Land Use
Rainfall
Soil and and Practice
Nature of Inten- Up
Loss Inches sity and $83; Sod
in./hr.* Down

Hillsdale 1.76 3.6
Runoff (%) 54.1 56.2 1.6
$011 (tons/a) 6.5 8.1 0.0
Coloma 2.52 5.1
Runoff (%) 57.6 47.8 6.0
$011 (tons/a) 24.0 23.0 0.0

 

* Rainfall intensities for a 20-minute period.

loss in August, Table X, was also associated with a high
amount and intensity of rainfall.

In Michigan, the agronomists are recommending corn
planting about May 8th. This is the best so far as
yield, time Of harvesting, and the relation to erosion
control are concerned. An early planting time results
in less susceptibility of soil to erosion at the end of
May and all of June.

The higher loss of water and soil in Hillsdale soil
under contour in Table XII is explained in part by the

37
small effect of contouring immediately after planting,

but other circumstances must have had an influence in
this unexpected result, such as differences in density
of weeds and stand of corn. There was a small differ-
ence in percentage of water loss from Hillsdale and

Coloma, under up and down hill cultivation, cropped to

corn.

LABORATORY SOIL STUDIES

Procedure

Five to six core samples were taken of each horizon
of the St. Clair, Miami, Hillsdale, and Coloma soils,
from pits dug beside the demonstrational plots from
which the data on water and soil losses were available.
Samples of the Hillsdale and Coloma were taken in the
place where the demonstrational plots were located a few
years ago. All sampling sites were chosen as representa-
tive of the soils on the plots. The sites, except the
Hillsdale which was in a cultivated orchard, were covered
with grass, but the vegetation was more dense on the St.
Clair and Miami soils. The core samples were collected
in brass cylinders, 2 inches high, with volumes of 192 cc
each, for the laboratory study.

The infiltration was measured using a cylinder of

 

the same dimension as the cylinder holding the sample,
above the sample, and Joined with a rubber band to hold
the water. After putting the samples in a can with the
water level near the top of the cylinders, for a period
of 24 hours, for complete saturation, the samples were
set on a screen and 100 cc of water were poured over the

soil sample. As soon as the water disappeared from the

39

sample surface 100 cc more were added. The amount of
water in cc that passed through the surface of the sample
in 2 hours was measured.

The non-capillary_p9rosity, in percentage Of"volume,
was determined by the difference in weight of the sample
when saturated and after being drained on a tension table
at 1.6 pF.

The capillary porosity, as percentage by volume, was
calculated by taking the difference Of weight after tak-
ing Off of the pF table and after 24 hours in the oven
at 110 degrees F.

The volume weight was obtained by dividing the oven
dry weight of the soil cores by the volume of the brass
cylinder (192 cc).

The specific gravity was determined by the usual
pycnometer method. '

The total porosity was calculated by the formula:

volume wei ht ]
100 - [BEECITIE‘EFEVIE5 x 100] and by adding non-capillary

to capillary porosity.

The percentage of swelling was calculated by mea-
suring the height of the sample over the top of the
cylinder, after complete saturation of the sample.

To calculate the shrinkage percentage, the core sam-

 

ple was taken out of the cylinder and put in a can with

known volume and which was filled with fine sand and

 

PLATE 1

PLOTS ON MIAMI SOIL, AT BURTON STREET FARM, FENTON SOIL
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AUGUST, 1950

 

SAMPLING 0N COLOMA SOIL, ST. JOSEPH RIVER
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT

41

 

PLATE 3

SAMPLES 0F COLOMA SOIL, ST. JOSEPH RIVER
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT

42

«£300 on. EHSHm NEE mH amHEAHSm
mmBquzoz MHEO .Bm 924 .HSdHZ qadnmAAHm .amHMZHSm

+~ madam

 

 

”Bmon OB HES 20mm

43
shaken in the same way for every sample. The sand dis-
placed was measured in a graduated cylinder.. From the
difference between 192 cc and the volume of the oven-dry

sample the volume percentage of shrinkage was calculated.
Experimental Results

Tables A, B, 0, and D, in the Appendix, give the
infiltration in millimeters per hour, non-capillary,
capillary and total porosity in percentage of volume,
volume weight, specific gravity, swelling and shrinkage
as percentage of volume found in the samples of the four
soils studied. The presence of some stones close to the
walls of the cylinder was responsible for some variations
in the data. Table XIII summarizes the mean values of
each of these properties for each of these soils studied.
Table XIV shows the total changes in volume by swelling
and shrinkage with changes in the moisture content, ex-
pressed as percentage of the oven-dry volumes. Table XV
gives the mean values of non-capillary, capillary and
total porosity, considering the volume of core sample

after swelling.

 

TABLE XIII

SHRINKAGE OF THE HORIZONS OF ST. CLAIR, MIAMI, HILLSDALE AND COLOMA SOILS

SUMMARY OF THE MEAN VALUES OF INFILTRATION RATE, POROSITY, VOLUME WEIGHT, SPECIFIC GRAVITY, SWELLING AND

 

44

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizons
Soils Properties

Al A2 Bl B2 Cl 02 D2 D3
St. Clair Infiltration 240.0 40.0 63.1 114.9 9.1 7.1
Miami mm/h 124.0 20.3 43.1 28.1 10.3
Hillsdale 47.0 23.5 27.5 70.0 326.5
ggloma 283.6 216.9 309.1 393.9 449.3
St. Clair Non- 12.3 “8.9 8.5 7.4 7.0 7.9
Miami Capillary 13.7 10.8 12.6 -11.9 9.7
Hillsdale Pores 19.0 15.6 13.9 10.9 14.6
ggloma Volume % 11.5 12.2 15.5 15.7 12.8
St. Clair Capillary ’29.6 35.1 37.7 38.4 33.7 29.4
Miami Pores 30.2 28.2 34.0 34.5 30.6
Hillsdale Volume % 19.0 23.3 23.7 27.0 17.3
ggloma 31.3 28.1 24.4 24.0 25.3
St. CIair 'Tota1¥* 41.9 44.0 ‘46.2 45.8‘ 40.7 37.3
Miami Pores. 43.9 39.0 46.6 46.3 40.3
Hillsdale Volume 5 38.0 8.9 37.6 37.9 31.9
ggloma 42.8 40.3 39.9 39.7 38.1
St. Clair 'Volume 1.50 1.53 ‘1.46 ‘I.52 1.01 1.79
Miami Weight 1.50 1.76 1.58 1.56 1.76
Hillsdale 1.64 1.69 1.67 1.62 1.58
ggloma 1.45 1.51 1.50 1.50 1.52
St. Clair Specific 2.05 2}00 2.71 2.08 2.70 2(72
Miami Gravity 2.64 2.65 2.71 2.70 2.70
Hillsdale 2.65 2.68 2.68 2.70 2.67
Coloma 2.60 2.61 2.62 2.65 2.68
SE. Clair SWeIIing 3.98 2.98 2578 2.18 3.97 3.05
Miami Volume % 2.47 4.30 3.71 3.19 3.77
Hillsdale — 2.31 2.77 1.19 -
leoma - ~ - - -
St. Clair Shrinkage 11.2 7.4 13.7 14.9 4.8 4.7
Miami Volume % 16.1 5.3 11.9 9-3 1-3
Hillsdale 3.1 3.6 5.6 6.3 -
Qploma 7.1 5.0 2.8 2.4 1.0

 

** Sum of non—capillary and capillary porosity.

 

 

45
TABLE XIV

TOTAL CHANGE IN SOIL VOLUME FROM OVEN-DRY TO SATURATED,
0N OVEN DRY BASIS, FROM THE MEAN VALUES OF
SHRINKAGE AND SWELLING PERCENTAGES*

n

 

 

 

Horizons
Soils
Al A2 B1 B2 01 C2 D2 D3
St. Clair 17.0 11.0 20.0 20.0 9.6 9.0
Miami 22.0 10.6 18.4 14.2 5.2
Hillsdale 3.1 6.2 8.1 8.1 0.0
Coloma 7.6 5.2 2.8 2.4 1.0

 

*Calculated by the formula:

, shrinkage + swellin
100 - shrinKage ‘5 x 100’

All numbers represent percentage.

Discussion

According to the mean values of Table XIII, the A2
horizon is the least permeable in the solum. The per-
meability of this horizon increases in the following
order: Miami, Hillsdale, and Coloma soils. The low
infiltration rate of A2 in relation to the other horizons
in the solum of Miami, Hillsdale and Coloma is attributed
to the compactness of this horizon, as it is shown by the
low porosity in all three soils and by its higher volume
weight in relation to other horizons of the solum. This
higher volume weight of A2 compared with other horizons

of the solum.was observed also in Miami under forest

46
TABLE XV

MEAN VALUES OF NON-CAPILLARY, CAPILLARY AND TOTAL
POROSITY, CONSIDERING THE VOLUME OF CORE SAMPLE
AFTER SWELLING. THE FIRST GROUP OF NUMBERS
REFERS TO NON-CAPILLARY, THE SECOND TO
CAPILLARY, AND THE LAST TO TOTAL

 

 

 

 

POROSITY*
Horizons
Soils
Al A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D2 D3

St. Clair 17.3 10.0 10.7 6.8 10.6 8.1
Miami 14.9 8.2 11.4 10.8 7.5

Hillsdale 19.3 16.8 16.2 13.8 23.3

Coloma 12. 14.1 18.3 19.2 1 .0

St. Clair 28.3 34.0 36.6 37.6 32.4 28.3
Miami 29. 27.0 32.6 33.2 29.5

Hillsdale 19.0 22.7 22.0 26.7 17.3

Coloma 31.3 28.1 2 .4 24.0 25.3

St. Clair 45.6 44.0 47.3 44.4 43.0 36.4
Miami 44.3 35.2 44.0 44.0 37.0

Hillsdale 28.3 39.5 39.2 40.5 40.6

Coloma 4.1 2.2 42.7 43.2 43.3

 

* Total porosity, on saturated basis =

total pores + swelli volume

I swe ng vo ume]

= _ volume weight

TOtal pores 100 [We graVIfy] x 100
Non-capillary porosity = Total porosity - capillary por-
osity. Capillary porosity based on 192 00 plus swelling
volume.

 

47
vegetation, by students in the course of Micropedology
(s. Science 417, Fall, 1950).

Bouyoucos (8) observed that a very small amount of
dispersed colloids or other fine material, placed in
certain positions, can overcome the dominant influence

of coarse granular structure upon rapid percolation.

The second least permeable horizon in the solum of
St. Clair or Hillsdale is the B1. In the B2 horizons,
the permeability increases in the following order:

Miami, St. Clair, Hillsdale and Coloma. The B2 horizons
are more clayey than the A2 or B1 horizons. This ac-
counts for the greater swelling of the B2 horizons in
the St. Clair, Miami, and Hillsdale profiles. However,
in the Coloma profile this is not true. The blocky
structure in the B2 horizons seems to be responsible for
their greater infiltration rates than that of A2 or Bl
horizons of St. Clair, Miami, and Hillsdale. The large
changes in volume with moisture content, Table XIV, prob-
ably aid in the formation of this blocky structure.

In the A1 horizons, the infiltration rate increased
in the order: Hillsdale, Miami, St. Clair and Coloma.
In the Cl horizons, the order is: Miami, St. Clair,
Hillsdale and Coloma. The infiltration rate of the least
permeable horizon in each profile increases in the order:

St. Clair, Miami, Hillsdale and Coloma. Apparently, the

48
relative infiltration rates of these soils will vary
with the depth to which they are wetted or eroded.

The low infiltration into Hillsdale Al is probably
due to a peculiar arrangement of the particles, packed
tgether in such a way as to reduce the infiltration rate.
The lower infiltration rate on Miami in relation to St.
Clair is likely to be due to the differences in natural
cleavages, that is, the openings between aggregates are
more favorable to infiltration on St. Clair. The Al
horizon in Miami has weak platy structure, which seems
to be an index of low infiltration rate.

There is no apparent relationship between total por-
osity, capillary porosity, or non~capillary porosity
and infiltration rate, in Table XIII. As some investi-
gators have suggested (2, 10, 13, 20, 30), the size of
the non-capillary pores is more important than the
anount. In part this lack of correlation between por-
osity and infiltration rate is due to errors in the
estimation of the former in Table XIII. These errors
are of three kinds: (1) Entrapped air in the cores; (2)
loss of water from the largest non-capillary pores in
transferring the cores to the balance; and (3) increases
in volumes of the cores on saturation with water. In
Table XV the data have been recalculated to avoid these
difficulties. A comparison of the values in these two

tables shows that: (l) the capillary porosity is

49
overestimated on samples that swelled on wetting: (2) the
non-capillary porosity is underestimated in most cases;
and (3) the total porosity was usually underestimated by
the usual procedures used in Table XIII.

While there was no apparent influence of swelling
or shrinkage, 233.52, on infiltration rate for the
coarser textured Hillsdale and Coloma, a higher total
change in volume of the St. Clair and Miami horizons
was associated with higher infiltration rate, with few
exceptions.

The small differences in total porosity of these
soils, Table XV, are in accordance with results of
Baver (4). He determined pore space of different soils
and found no large differences in total porosity between
different textured soils except as influenced by organic
matter.

As shown in Graph 1, there is no close correlation
between percentage of non-capillary porosity and infil-
tration rate, but the trend of the curve that expresses
the relationship between these two properties indicates

some correlation between them.

 

SUMMARY

In this investigation, involving runoff and erosion
data from field plots and laboratory studies of core
samples from four soil profiles, the objective was to
study some relationships between permeability and water
and soil losses from these soils under different crOp-
ping systems and tillage practices. St. Clair, Miami,
Hillsdale and Coloma soils on slopes of 9, 7, 6, and
6%, respectively, were selected for these studies.

‘ Records of water and soil losses on St. Clair and
Miami crOpped to corn, oats, and meadow, when cultivated
both up and down the slope, and on the contour were avail-
able. Soil and water losses on Hillsdale and Coloma,
cropped to continuous corn cultivated up and down the
lepe and on the contour, or in continuous sod had
also been measured by the Soil Conservation Service of
the U. S. D. A. Estimates of the amount of erosion on
B and C slopes of these soils had also been tabulated
for areas near where the above data and soil samples
were obtained.

Core samples from all horizons of these four soils
were studied. The infiltration rate, non—capillary, cap-
illary and total porosity; volume weight, specific gravity,

swelling and shrinkage of each sample were measured.

52

As a result of these studies, the following state-

ments can be made:

1.

2.

4.

Erosion has been more active on the C sIOpes
than on B slopes of all these soils.

Contouring reduced to a great extent the soil
loss compared to up and down cultivation. Soil
losses were reduced more than 505 on St. Clair,
Miami and Hillsdale, and less on Coloma.

Contouring reduced the water losses. In general
the loss on contoured plots was more than 50%
of the loss under up and down cultivation.

Corn was the most soil erosion exposing crop,
followed by oats. 0n Miami the soil loss from
oats plots was less than 50% of the soil loss
on plots cropped to corn. Plots under sod or
meadow had insignificant soil loss and a small
percentage of water loss.

The water lost by runoff was greater from Miami
than from Hillsdale and least from Coloma soil.
This is in the order of increasing permeability
of the least permeable horizon in each profile.

Two factors were evident as very important in
soil loss: the clay ratio, influencing the ease
of dispersion of the soil, and infiltration rate,
governing the amount of runoff.

A. A very Bugaclay ratio can overcome a favor-
able infiltration rate, as happens on Coloma
soil. Coloma has a higher infiltration rate
than Hillsdale but is more susceptible to
erosion due to ahlgher clay ratio.

B. A smaller percentage of clay in Hillsdale,
compared to Miami and St. Clair, was respon-
sible for a lower rate of infiltration into
Hillsdale A1 due to less aggregation of the
latter and a special arrangement of the
Hillsdale soil particles.

C. St. Clair silt clay loam is less erodible
than.Miami sandy loam due to a Luwer clay
ratio and a higher infiltration rate.

8.

53

On these four soils, there is a general rela-
tionship between non-capillary porosity and
infiltration rate. High non-capillary porosity
is associated with high infiltration rate, but
this relationship is not consistent for all
horizons of these soils.

The A2 horizon of Miami, Hillsdale and Coloma
was the least permeable, had the highest volume
weight and the lowest total porosity, in the
solum. Except for Hillsdale, where the total
porosity of the Bl was slightly smaller. These
prOperties indicate a special arrangement of the
soil separates in A2, which reduces the infil-
tration rate. No A2 horizon was present in the
St. Clair and there the B1 was the least per-
meable horizon, had the highest volume weight
and the lowest total porosity in the solum.

If the swelling volume of saturated core sam-
ples is not considered in the calculation of
pore space, there is usually an overestimation
of capillary porosity and an underestimation
of non-capillary and total porosity.

l.

2.

7.

10.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ayres, Q. C., Soil Erosion and its Control, McGraw-
1936 Hill BooE Company, New YorE.

Baver, L. D., "Soil Permeability in Relation to Non-
1938 capillary Porosity." Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 3:52-56.

Baver, L. D. Soil Ph 8108 John Wiley and Sons
1948 Inci, New YorE. ’ ,

Baver, L. D., ”Report of the Committee on Physics
1935 02 fioil-moisture." ‘Am. Geophy. Union Trans.
1 : 27.

Bennett, H. H., Soil Conservation, McGraweHill Book
1939 Company, New York.

 

Borst, H. L., A. G. McCall, and F. G. Bell, "Investi-
1945 gation in Erosion Control and the Reclama-

tion of Eroded Land at the Northwest
Appalachian Conservation Experiment Station,
Zanesville, Ohio, 1934—42." Technical Bul.
No. 888, U. S. D. A. in cooperation with
the Ohio Ag. Exp. Sta.

Bouyoucos, G. J., "The Clay Ratio as a Criterion of
1935 Susceptibility of Soil to Erosion." :52.
Soc. Agron. Jour. 27:738-741.

Bouyoucos, G. J., "A New Method of Measuring the
1930 Comparative Rate of Percolation of water
in.Different Soils." Am. Soc. Agron. Jour.

Browning, G. M., R. A. Norton, and A. G. McCall,
1948 "Investigation in Erosion Control and the
Reclamation of Eroded Land at the Missouri
Valley Loess Conservation.Exp. Sta., Clar-
inda, Iowa, 1931-42." Tech. Bul. No. 959,
U. S. D. A. in cooperation with the Iowa
Agr. Exp. Sta.

Daubenmire, R. F., Plants and Environment, John
1950 Wiley and Sons, Inc., New‘Yorki

 

ll.

12.

130

14.
150

l6.

l7.

18.

19.

20.

21‘.

22.

23.

24.

25.

55

Ellison, w. D., "Soil Erosion." Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
1947 Proc. 12:479-484.

 

Gustafson, A. F., Soils and Soil Management, McGraw-
1941 Hill Book CCmpany, New York.

 

Gustafson, A. F., Using and Mana in Soils, McGraw-
1948 Hill Book Company, New %oré.

Israelsen, 0. w., Irri ation Principles and Practices,
1950 John'Wiley & ons, Inc., Neijork.

 

 

Jenni, H., Factors of 3011 Formation, McGraw-Hill
19 1 BOOK Company, New YOrk.

Joffe, J. S., The A.B 9.23 Soils, Pedology Publica-
1949 tions, New BrunswicE, N. J.

Jones, L. G., and L. M. Thompson, Soil Erosion and
1941 its Control, A. a M. College, Texas.

Kellogg, C. E., The Soils that Su ort H5! The Mac-
1949 millan Company, New YorE.

Kramer, P. J., Plant and Soil Water Relationships,
1949 McGraw3HIII Book Company, New York.

Leamer, R. H., and J. F. Lutz, "Determination of
1940 Pore-size Distribution in Soils.“ Soil
SCi o 49: 347'360 0

Lee, C. E., "Report of the Committee on Physics of
1935 Sgii Moisture." Am. Geophy. Union Trans.
1 : 29. "‘

Lutz, J. F., "The Relation of Soil Erosion to Cer-
1935 tain Inherent Soil Properties." Soil Sci.
40: 439‘457 o

Lynd, J. Q., "Injurious Effects of Overliming an
1947 Acid Soil." M. S. Thesis, Michigan State
College.

Mick, A. H., "The Pedology of Several Profiles De-
1949 veloped from the Calcareous Drift of Eastern
Michigan." Agri. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bul. 212.

Middleton, H. E., "The Properties of Soils Which
1930 Influence Erosion." U. S. D. A. Tech.
Bul. No. 178.

26.

27.

28.

29.

300

310

32.

33-

34.

56

Musgrave, G. W., "The Infiltration Capacity of Soils
1935 in Relation to the Control of Surface Run-
off and.Erosion." ‘Am..§gg..Agron. Jour.
27:336-345-

Musgrave, G. W., "Some Relationships Between Slope-
1935 length, Surface-runoff, and the Silt- load
of Surface-runoff." Am. Geophy. Union Trans.
.16: 472-478 0

Musgrave, G. W., and R. A. Norton, "Soil and Water
1937 Conservation Investigations." U. S. D. A.
Tech. Bulletin No. 558 in coop. with the
Iowa Ag. Exp. Sta.

Page J. B., and C. J. Willard, "Cropping Systems
46 and 3011 Properties." Soil Sci. Soc. £11.
Proc. 11:81-88.

Schiff, L., and F. R. Dreibelbis, "Infiltration,
1948 Soil Moisture, and Land Use Relationships
with Reference to Surface Runoff.” S. C.
Service, U. S. D. A. Research Summaries,
Part VII.

Slater, C. S., and H. G. Byers, "A Laboratory Study
1931 of the Field Percolation Rates of Soils."
U. S. D. A. Tech. Bulletin No. 232.

Thorne, D. W., and H. B. Paterson, Irri ated Soils,
1949 The Blakiston Company, PhiIaCeIpHIa and
Toronto.

Van Doren, C. A., L. E. Gard, and E. H. Kidder,
1948 "Summary of Results - Soil and Water Con-
servation.Experiments, Dixon Springs, Ill."
8. C. Service, U. S. D. A. Research Sum-
maries, Part VII.

Veatch, J. 0., "Agricultural Land Classification and
1941 Land Types of Michigan." Michigan Spec. Bul.
2

O

Yoder, R. E., "A direct Method of Aggregate Analyses

1936 of Soils and a Study of the Physical Nature

of Erosion Losses." Amer. §2§. Agron. Jour.
28:337-351o

APPENDIX

58
TABLE A
INFILTRATION RATE, POROSITY, VOLUME WEIGHT, SPECIFIC GRAVITY, SWELLING AND SHRINKAGE OF ST. CLAIR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Non” a illar Total 16 Swelling Shrinkage
Deptn Infiltration Capillary C Pores y pores xgigfii EESSigy % Volume % Volume
Sample Horizon 1n mm/h Pores Volume % %
Inches Volume % 2 05 I 98 13 O
21.6 41.0 1-55 fi ' '
1 AI 2:4 fi§$‘8 i§:$ 30.6 48.0 1.39 " g-gg 13:3
2 u H 2 0.0 8.6 33°2 39'0 1'62 n .96 13.0
3 n .. 254.0 11-4 31°8 46°0 1’44 u 6°00 11.7
4 n u 58.0 17.3 28.4 45.0 1.46 n l. 8 12.5
5 4 1' I%l 0 9-9 32-0 42'0 1'53 3'35 11.2’
5 ' 24b 0 12,3 29.6 43:5 1-59, 5'00 6.8
KVerage ‘9 5‘0 35,3 '38.0 1.00 2595’ 1.98 7.5
___ 7 El ‘759 96.5 10.6 27.2 46.8 i'é? n 1°98 8.0
8 H . 8 2 27° ' ° n o 6.8
n " 10.0 ° 1.98
3 . 4.105 47°C 1'41 fl .
1(9) " I. 42.3 3.: 4005 46.0 .1044 3.8% 187.2-
11 ” 20‘0 5,9 35.1 42.4 ‘1.53 2 71, 1:98 9.9
'AVerage 4 ’0 7.1 ’3919 46.5 1.45» 5 1 98 13.3
13 " 1: 4'8 7.9 41.3 47~5 1'42 n 6 00 16.6
14 n " 96.8 10.2 39.0 46.0 1.46 H 1:98 13.0
15 H n $7.0 10.]. 27°1 4205 1’56 2.78 13.7
16 n 63.1 6.5 37°7 45‘9 1'42 2 68* 1.98 15.6
KVePage lO '0‘ 6.6 37-2 42-5 1.56 a 1.98 18.2
_17 C 19:21 “-300 8.7 41.7 14.5.5 104 I! 0.99 16.1
18 u :1 l 5. 8.1 40°C 44-5 1'49 n 1.98 11.5
19 H 3908 5.6 35.4 41.5 1057 H 3.96 13.3
20 u :: 182.0 7.9 37'5 42'0 1‘56 ' 2.18’ 14.9
21 n 7114.9 7.4 3&Lfl. 43'2 1.55 2 70’ 5.00 5~5
AVérase - '2 511’ 33-4 41.0 1.0 5 3,95 4.2
‘I22 D2 26428 5- 7 0 33.8 40.0 1.62 H 2 96 4.7
23 " II ii'i 520 33.8 40-0 1-62 ‘ 3197 4.5
24 n 9‘1 7‘0 33.7 4O°3 1.21 2 72* 0.00 3'6
Average .6 7‘0 35.2 38.0 1.86 5 0.99 4.7
—~25. D3 32—34 7.0 8.2 26.0 31-5 1‘ u 3 96 5-7
26 u I: 13.9 8.4 27.0 33-0 11.132 ' 3.65 4-7
__27 H 7:1 7.9 29.4 740 '79 a?“

 

Average

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59
TABLE B
INFILTRATION RATE, POROSITY, VOLUME WEIGHT, SPECIFIC GRAVITY, SWELLING AND SHRINKAGE OF MIAMI
Non—
Depth . Capillary Total
. . Infiltration Capillary Volume Specific Swelling Shrinkage
am Z A
S ple Horl on InCHes mm/h V053;:§% V058;:i% Pages Weight Gravity % Volume % VOlume
1 Al 5—25 111.5’ '14.8' 30.2 44.0 1.48 2.64 0.00 19.3
2 " " 130.7 15.3 31.9 46.5 1.41 " 1.98 20.3
3 " " 124.5 14.2 33.0 49.5 1.33 4 1.98 23.7
4 " " 100.5 14.2 32.0 45.0 1.45 " 1.98 25.0
5 ” " 196.0 14.5 31.2 48.5 1.36 4 3.96 20.9
6 " " 210.0 18.7 32.0 50.5 1.31 " 3.96 22.4
Average 7 . 145.5 15.3 31.7 47.3 1.39 2.31 21.9
7 “ 35-55 60.0 12T3 28.0 36.5* 1.687 " 3.96 12.0
8 " " 84.7 13.5 28.9 38.5 1.63 ” 3.96 9.4
9 " " 61.2 10.7 29.4 37.5 1.65 " 3.96 7.8
10 ” " 57.5 13.4 28.2 39.0 1.61 " 3.96 9.4
11 " ” 57.0 12.9 28.5 40.0 1.59 " 0.00 12.0
__12 " " 54.7 10.6 29.0 40.0 1.58 " 0.00 12.0
Average 4, 1 62.5 12.2 28.7 38.6 1.62 2.64 19.4 [
Average A1 2~52 124.0‘ 13.7 30.2 ‘42.9 *I.50 2147 16.1
13 A2 ‘7~9 18.8 11.4 :2778 33.0 1.77 2.65 3.96 5.8
14 " " 21.4 9.8 29.4 30.5 1.84 " 6.00 7.3
15 4 1' 28.5 _ 11.5 29.2 35. 1.72 " 3.96 4.2
16 4 " 11.5 10.9 27.4 32.0 1.80 " 3.96 6.8
17 4 " 15.5 9.9 28.0 33.5 1.76 " 3.96 3.9
_318 " " 26.1 11.3 27.3 36.0 1-62_ 1' 3-96 3.7
Ayerage 20.3 10.8 28.2 33.3 1.76 ‘7 4.30 5.3
19 B2 11-13 21.7 10.9 32.6 37.5 1.69 2.71 3.96 6.8
20 " " 73.0 14.2 29.2 40.5 1.61 " 1.98 11.5
21 4 " 22.2 12.0 32.0 38.0 1.68 ” 3.96 9.9
22 n It 142.3 12.7 30.7 39.0 1.65 n 6.00 8.4
123 " " 18.8 11.0 33.0 36.0 1.73 " 6-00 7~3
Ayerage 35.6 12.2 31.5 38.2 1.67 4.38 8 8
24 7" 15-17 “30.1 11.6 7‘38;1 40.0 1.60 " 6.00 -
25 4 " 57.5 14.4 31.9 42.0 1.57 " 1-98 15.9
26 n n 113.1 15.8 32.8 42.0 1.57 " 3°96 9-4
27 " " 26.1 12.1 35.8 43.0 1.55 " 6.00 _
28 4 '* 50.9 13.1 33-6 44.5 1.50 " ._1 1.98 13.6
Eierage 41.5* 13.4 35T2 42.1 1.55 . fi_f§ 3.98 12.9
(Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE B (Continued)

6O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non— .
Depth Capillary Total
Infiltration Capillary Volume Specific Swelling Shrinkage
Sample Horizon Iniges mm/h V053;:i% Vo§3;:i% Pores Weight Gravity % Volume % Volume
29 *82 19—21 30.0 13.7 36.3 44.0 1.52 2.71 1.98 14.6
30 ” “ 143.5 12.0 32.6 44.5 1.50 " 1.98 14.6
31 " " 18.8 13.3 36.8 43.5 1.53 ” 3.96 14.6
32 " ” 32.1 9.8 32.7 44.0 1.51 " 0.00 15.1
33 " " 36.5 12.6 37.8 45.5 1.48 4 6.00 11.5
AVerage 52.2 12:37 35.2 44.3 1.51 2.78 14:1
Average B2 11-21 43.1 12.9 34.0 41.9 1.58 3.71 11.9
34 Cl 24-26 39.5 ‘10.1 31.6 44.5 1.50 2.70 0&00‘ ’Tdf
35 " " 28.0 12.5 36.3 41.0 1.59 " 6.00 9.9
36 " " 9.9 11.6 38.2 42.5 1.55 " 6.00 9.9
37 " " 40.2 12.5 30.6 40.5 1.61 " 0.00 12.0
38 " ” 23.0 12.8 35.7 43.5 1.53 " 3.96 6.8
Average 28.1 11.9 34.5 42.4 1.56~ w3.19 9J3
39 02 30-32 21.4 11.9 34.4 40.0 1.62 2.70* 3:96 8.4
40 " " 14.3 11.5 37.4 43.5 1.53 " 3.96 7.1
41 " " 7.5 11.0 33.0 39.0 1.64 ” 1.98 9.7
42 " " 3 3 10.1 33.2 34.0 1.78 " 3.96 6.8
43 n ** _ 8.6 31.0 31.5 1.85 " 6.00 7.6
Average 11.6 10.6 33.8 37.6 1.68“ 3397 ‘7.9
44 " 36-38 21.6 10.6 27.8“ 34.0 1.78 " 3.96 9:4
45 " " 11.2 9.9 26.9 33.5 1.80 " 6.00 4.7
46 " " 6.0 8.1 28.2 31.5 1.85 " 1.98 3.7
47 n :x 3.9 8.7 27.7 29.5 1.90 H 3.96 5.8
48 " " 2.5 6.9 26.5 29.5 1.90 4 1.98 9.9
Average 9.0 "8.8 27.4 31.6 1.85 3.58 0.7
Average 02 30-38 10.3 9.7 30.6 34.6 1.76 3.77 7.3

 

 

 

 

 

61
TABLE C

INFILTRATION RATE, POROSITY, VOLUME WEIGHT, SPECIFIC GRAVITY, SWELLING AND SHRINKAGE OF HILLSDALE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Non- .
De tn . a 1 ‘
Sample Horizon In Infiltration Capillary C ggrizry $232: Volume Specific Swelling Shrinkage
Inches mm/ V033;:i% VolumegA % Weight Grav1ty % VOlume % Volume
1 Al 3-5 52.2 19.1 20.3 40.1 1.5 1.6 - .
2 " " 51.0 19.8 18.8 39.0 1.63 "<5 - 2.;
3 " " 46.0 18.3 19.4 38.5 1.63 4 — 3.1
4 " " 53.0 21.0 16.7 37.0 1.67 4 — 1.0
5 " " 32.8 16.9 19.7 37.0 1.67 4 - 1.5
Average 47.0 19.0 19.0* 4‘3813 1.04 — 3.1
6 A2 9-11 26.1 15.8 22.4 38:77 1.04' 2.68 - 4.1
7 " " 22.0 15.6 25.2 39.0 1.63 " 1.98 4.7
8 " “ 14.9 13.5 23.7 33.6 1.78 4 0.99 4.1
9 " *‘ 34.7 14.8 22.4 35.7 1.72 V — 3.6
10 " " 20.1 18.2 24.7 37.7 1.67 " 3.96 1.5
Average 23.5 15.6 23.3 '36.5 1.69 “‘2.31 3.0
11 B1 14-16 10.7 10.9 27.2 37.0 1.69 2.68‘ 3.96 211
12 " " 24.5 14.9 23.8 37.3 1.68 " — 7.8
13 " “ 37.3 14.2 24.2 38.0 1.66 " 1.58 5.7
14 " *' 25.1 11.7 25.2 38.0 1.66 4 — 6.2
_315 " '? 34.0 12.0 23.9 37.3 1.68 " ~ 6.2
Average 27.5 13.9 IEEIT’ 37.5 1.07 2.77 5.6
16 B2 22-24 20.6 ‘12.3 25.4 39.5 1.63 2.70 - 6.2
17 " " 102.0 14.7 26.0 40.7 1.60 " — 3.1
18 u A 142.0 9.1 28.5 40.0 1.62 u 1-19 6-2
19 " " 15.7 7.7 2839, 39.0 1.65 " - 9.9
Average 70.0 10.9 27 O 39.8 1.02 1.19 0.3
20 c 52—54 340.0 16.7 13.0 40.0 1.60 2.07' — ‘3
21 " " 340.0 17.7 15.4 40.5 1.59 " — *
22 " " 300.0 15.8 16.5 40.8 1.58 " - *
23 " " 340.0 10.1 21.9 41.5 1.56 " ~ *
24 " " 312.5 12.8 19.5 40.5 1-59 “ - *
Average w“326.5 14.0 17.3 40.0 1.58

 

* Samples cemented 0n the cylinder walls.

 

 

No apparent shrinkage.

 

 

 

 

TABLE D

INFILTRATION RATE, POROSITY, VOLUME WEIGHT, SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND SHRINKAGE OF COLOMA

62

 

Non-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depth Capillary Total
Infiltration Capillary Volume Specific Shrinkage
Sample Horizon in Pores Pores , .
Inches mm/h V0I3;:i% Volume % % Weight Gravity % VOlume
I’ A1 ‘2L4 200.0 12.5 26.9 44.2 1.45 2.00 9.6
2 " " 285.0 12.2 31.2 45.7 1.41 " 9.1
3 " *' 272.0 11.4 32.1 43.5 1.47 " 5.7
4 ” " 307.5 10.6 32.1 42.0 1.51 V 4.2
5 " " 287.5 10.7 32.2 45.0 1.43 " *
Average 283.6 11.5 31.3 44.1 1.45 7.1
0 A2 9-11 243.5 11.3 29.07 42.2 1.51 2.01 4
7 ” " 177.5 10.3 30.2 42.2 1.51 " *
8 " " 233.5 9.9 30.5 46.0 1.41 " 4.9
9 " “ 245.0 11.1 30.4 42.8 1.49 4 1.6
10 " " 178.0 8.7 32.7 41.7 1.52 " 4.7
Average 215.5 10.5’ 30.7 43.0 1.49 3.73
11 " 14-10 144.0 12.0 24.0 41.0’ 71.54 " 0.2
12 " " 202.0 12.4 27.3 41.0 1.54 4 6.2
13 " " 270.0 12.9 28.6 42.5 1.50 " 5.7
14 " " 200.0 13.3 25.2 40.5 1.55 " 6.2
15 " " 276.0 20.0 22.2 42.2 1.51 4 7.8
Average 215:4~ 14.2 25.5 41.4 '71.53 0.4
Average A2 9—10 216.9 12.2 26.1 w42.2 1.51 5.0
10 ’B1 20~22 ‘233.5* *12.0 25.7 41.2 1.54 2502 3.1
17 " " 261.5 13.1 26.2 43.5 1.48 3.1
18 " '* 293.0 14.5 23.8 41.6 1.53 x 1.6
19 " " 457.5 18.9 25.5 45.7 1.42 h 2.6
20 " " 300.0 18.1 20.7 41.6 1.53 . 3.6
Average ‘309.1 15.5 24.4 42.7 1.50 , 2.07
’21 B2 27-29 324.0 15.8' 22.2 43.4 1.50 2&05“ 5.7
22 " " 427.0 13.3 25.4 44.1 1.48 " 2.1
23 4 " 397.5 13.4 26.4 42.0 1.54 n 3.1
24 4 " 400.0 14.9 25.2 42.0 1.54 n 2.6
25 " " 257.5 16.8 22.9 43.8 1.49 1.0
Average 7301.2 15.4 24.4 ,43.1 1.51 2.9

 

(Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53
TABLE D (Continued)
Depth Infiltration Ca filigr. capillary TOtal 1
Sample Horizon in mm/h gores j Pores Pores Voiufie Specific Shrinkage
Inches Volume % Volume % % We g t Gravity % V01ume
26 ‘22 34-36 480.0 19.2 20.2 43.4 1.50 2.65 2.1
27 " " 422.5 15.1 25.0 43.0 1.51 " 3.1
22 3 3 13.530 ”'1 3.6% 1:173 1'28 3 2'1
, .5 19. 1. . 1. 1.0
30 " " 413.0 12.4 25.6 44.1 1.48 ” 1.0
Average 426.6 16.0 23.7 43.47* "1.50 1.9
Azeraee B2 27-30 393.9 15.7 24.0 43.2 1.50 2.4
31 C 42-44 510.0’ 14.8 22.4 44.0 1.50 2.68 0.5
32 U N 45705 .1209 2309 4400 1.50 H 1.06
33 x " 417.0 11.7 26.2 42.5 1.54 " 1.0
34 " 430.5 12.3 27.2 42.2 1.55 ” 1.0
35 " " 431.5 12.3 26.6 44.0 1.50 " 1.0
Average 449.3 12.8 25.5 43.3 1.52 1.0

 

* Samples cemented on the cylinder walls.

 

. a.

.. 1...
3J3 . ., Nani.
«$4211.... iguana.
O. ‘ ... .

 

 

 

 

 

IIIuI4"41441;IgllflnyglnuzuuanmmlymH