SOILS-L digests for MARCH 1996

To AGRONOMY homepage @ SunSITE

From ab4el@ab4el.com Mon Apr 1 00:01 EST 1996
From: Stephen Modena <modena@SunSITE.unc.edu>
Message-Id: <9604010001.modena@sunsite.unc.edu>
Subject: SOILS-L LOG9603
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 00:01:00 -0500 (EST)

This is the compendium of SOILS-L digests for March 1996.

It was prepared from the daily digest mailings. Some digests
may be missing, because occasional mailings are lost en route.



From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sat Mar 2 20:30 EST 1996
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 19:20:00 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603030120.AA10551@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 477

Contents:
Re: TDR in compost (jocke@texoma.com (John Ockels))

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 19:13:27 -0600 From: jocke@texoma.com (John Ockels) Subject: Re: TDR in compost Please forgive and indulge my massive ignorance and tell me what "TDR" is in the context of composting. Thank you kindly. John Ockels, PhD Solid Waste Coordinator Texoma Council of Governments Sherman, Texas <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sun Mar 3 20:32 EST 1996
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 19:20:54 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603040120.AA18183@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 478

Contents:
Re: TDR in compost (definition) (pbw1@cornell.edu (Peter Woodbury))
Re: TDR in compost (definit (Robert Edis .<.Robert_Edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 11:51:15 -0500 From: pbw1@cornell.edu (Peter Woodbury) Subject: Re: TDR in compost (definition) Definition of TDR: TDR is an abbreviation for "time domain reflectometry" which is a high-tech method of measuring the water content of soil or compost by means of measuring the dielectric constant. The appeal of TDR is that you can get an instantaneous measure of water content by having a portable device attached to a couple of steel rods a foot or more in length inserted in the soil or compost. The major catch (besides cost) is that you need to calibrate the measurements for a particular soil type or compost type. To calibrate, you compare TDR measurements to gravimetric measurements, that is, weighing the soil before and after oven drying. >Please forgive and indulge my massive ignorance and tell me what "TDR" is in >the context of composting. > >Thank you kindly. > >John Ockels, PhD >Solid Waste Coordinator >Texoma Council of Governments >Sherman, Texas %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Peter Woodbury Senior Research Specialist Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research Tower Road, Ithaca, NY 14853-1801 voice (607) 254-1216 fax (607) 254-1242 email pbw1@cornell.edu %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 09:12:34 +1000 From: Robert Edis .<.Robert_Edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au.>. Subject: Re: TDR in compost (definit Reply to: RE>>TDR in compost (definition) well actually, TDR measures the volumetric moisture content, not gravimetric, and in the case of soil should not need calibrating as the effect of water is really big compared to the solids (dialectric of water about 80, soil about 3-5 and air about 1). -------------------------------------- Date: 4/3/96 4:16 AM To: Robert Edis From: soils-l@unl.edu Definition of TDR: TDR is an abbreviation for "time domain reflectometry" which is a high-tech method of measuring the water content of soil or compost by means of measuring the dielectric constant. The appeal of TDR is that you can get an instantaneous measure of water content by having a portable device attached to a couple of steel rods a foot or more in length inserted in the soil or compost. The major catch (besides cost) is that you need to calibrate the measurements for a particular soil type or compost type. To calibrate, you compare TDR measurements to gravimetric measurements, that is, weighing the soil before and after oven drying. >Please forgive and indulge my massive ignorance and tell me what "TDR" is in >the context of composting. > >Thank you kindly. > >John Ockels, PhD >Solid Waste Coordinator >Texoma Council of Governments >Sherman, Texas %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Peter Woodbury Senior Research Specialist Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research Tower Road, Ithaca, NY 14853-1801 voice (607) 254-1216 fax (607) 254-1242 email pbw1@cornell.edu %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;4 Mar 1996 04:15:07 +1000 Received: from crcnis1.unl.edu by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.0-5 #7200) id .<.01I1XEEE36O0009S2O@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au.>. for robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 1996 04:15:03 +1000 Received: by crcnis1.unl.edu id AA14244 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au); Sun, 03 Mar 1996 11:03:42 -0600 Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 11:03:42 -0600 From: pbw1@cornell.edu (Peter Woodbury) Subject: Re: TDR in compost (definition) Sender: soils-l@unl.edu To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>. Errors-to: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu Reply-to: soils-l@unl.edu Message-id: .<.ad5f7e1e1e0210042392@[132.236.156.91].>. Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Originator: soils-l@unl.edu version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Mon Mar 4 20:32 EST 1996
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 19:21:21 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603050121.AA16353@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 479

Contents:
Re: TDR in compost ("Peter J. Harris" .<.P.J.Harris@reading.ac.uk.>.)
Re: TDR in compost (definition) (Gail Olson .<.gail@arrc.ncsu.edu.>.)
 STEVE, (GEORGE BAILEY .<.BAILEY.GEORGE@epamail.epa.gov.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 09:25:37 +0000 (GMT) From: "Peter J. Harris" .<.P.J.Harris@reading.ac.uk.>. Subject: Re: TDR in compost Hello John, You have already got the run-down on TDR from other contributors. However ISTR that the mushroom composters (some 20 years ago) had a probe that relied on thermal conductivity. It had to make allowance for the temp of the compost but then relied on the rate of heat loss from a source, the wetter the compost the faster the heat loss. It was looked down on by "the old boys" who simply pushed their hands into the compost, grabbed a fist-full and squeezed, theyt claimed that the "lads in white coats" simply didn't like to get "****" on their hands ! Best wishes, Peter Harris, Department of Soil Science, The University of Reading, UK. On Sat, 2 Mar 1996, John Ockels wrote: > Please forgive and indulge my massive ignorance and tell me what "TDR" is in > the context of composting. > > Thank you kindly. > > John Ockels, PhD > Solid Waste Coordinator > Texoma Council of Governments > Sherman, Texas > > <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 12:56:46 -0500 (EST) From: Gail Olson .<.gail@arrc.ncsu.edu.>. Subject: Re: TDR in compost (definition) I don't think it's necessary to calibrate TDR (for most soils), which is part of it's attraction. Some researchers have found that TDR doesn't work for their particular soils, but in general, I think calibration is unnecessary. Not sure this is the case with compost; we're looking into this now. gail On Sun, 3 Mar 1996, Peter Woodbury wrote: > Definition of TDR: > TDR is an abbreviation for "time domain reflectometry" which is a high-tech > method of measuring the water content of soil or compost by means of > measuring the dielectric constant. The appeal of TDR is that you can get an > instantaneous measure of water content by having a portable device attached > to a couple of steel rods a foot or more in length inserted in the soil or > compost. The major catch (besides cost) is that you need to calibrate the > measurements for a particular soil type or compost type. To calibrate, you > compare TDR measurements to gravimetric measurements, that is, weighing the > soil before and after oven drying. > > > >Please forgive and indulge my massive ignorance and tell me what "TDR" is in > >the context of composting. > > > >Thank you kindly. > > > >John Ockels, PhD > >Solid Waste Coordinator > >Texoma Council of Governments > >Sherman, Texas > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > Peter Woodbury > Senior Research Specialist > Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research > Tower Road, Ithaca, NY 14853-1801 > > voice (607) 254-1216 fax (607) 254-1242 > email pbw1@cornell.edu > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 15:52:58 -0500 From: GEORGE BAILEY .<.BAILEY.GEORGE@epamail.epa.gov.>. Subject: STEVE, STEVE, Thank you George W. Bailey Processes and Modeling Branch Ecosystems Research Division National Exposure Research Laboratory US Environmental Protection Agency 960 College Station Road Athens, GA 30605-2700 Phone: 706-546-3307 Fax: 706-546-3636 E-mail Bailey.George@epamail.epa.gov <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Mon Mar 4 20:32 EST 1996




From ab4el@ab4el.com Tue Mar 5 00:01 EDT 1996
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1996 00:01:00 -0500
Message-Id: .<.1996030500100.ab4el@ab4el.com.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 480 was NOT received

SOILS-L digest 480 was NOT received

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->



From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Thu Mar 7 16:35 EST 1996
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:13:35 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603071813.AA14933@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 481

Contents:
      cambisoils ("Jerzy Melke" .<.MELKEJ@biotop.umcs.lublin.pl.>.)
      Arctic and Alpine Brown Soils, Cambisols. ("Jerzy Melke" .<.MELKEJ@biotop.umcs.lublin.pl.>.)
 qCO2 and low clay content (Torsten Muller .<.Torsten.Muller@agsci.kvl.dk.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:27:24 +0100 From: "Jerzy Melke" .<.MELKEJ@biotop.umcs.lublin.pl.>. Subject: cambisoils Hallo I'm looking for analytical data for Arctic Brown Soils, Alpine Brown Soils, Cambisols: Fet, Alt, Mnt, Ct (t - total) Fep,Alp, Mnp,Cp - 0.1M sodium pyrophosphate (McKeague 1967,Bascomb 1968) Feo,Alo,Mno ( Schwertmann 1964, McKeague,Day 1966) Fed,Ald, Mnd (Mehra-Jackson 1960) Yours sincerely J.Melke P.S. My address is: Jerzy Melke Dept. of Soil Science Maria Curie-Sklodowska Universiyt Akademicka 19 Lublin, Poland. e-mail:melkej@biotop.umcs.lublin.pl <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 12:04:03 +0100 From: "Jerzy Melke" .<.MELKEJ@biotop.umcs.lublin.pl.>. Subject: Arctic and Alpine Brown Soils, Cambisols. Help me, I'm looking for analytical data for Arctic Brown Soils,Alpine Brown Soils, Cambisols: Fet, Alt, Mnt, Ct (t-total) Fep, Alp, Mnp, Cp - 0.1M sodium pyrophosphate (McKeague 1967 Bascomb 1966 Feo, Alo, Mno, Sio - (Schwertmann 1964, McKeague,Day 1966 ) Fed, Ald, Mnd, sid - (Mehra-Jackson 1960) Yours Sincerely P.S. Jerzy Melke My address is: dr Jerzy Melke Dept. of Soil Science Maria Curie-Sklodowska University Akademicka 19 20-033 Lublin Poland melkej@biotop.umcs.pl <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:06:36 +0100 From: Torsten Muller .<.Torsten.Muller@agsci.kvl.dk.>. Subject: qCO2 and low clay content Dear colleagues! I am just preparing a study concerning microbial activity in soils with different clay contents. This shall be used to improve the modeling of turnover of organic matter in agricultural soils. Recently, I am investigating the dependency of the metabolic quotient (qCO2=soil basal respiration/soil micorbial biomass) from clay content. A lot of literature is published dealing with soils having medium or high clay contents. However, only a few data exist for soils with low clay contents. Hence, my question is: Does anybody know literature dealing with qCO2 in soils with low clay contents (< 10%) or does anybody have unpublished data that could be usefull? Dr. Torsten Mueller The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University Department of Agricultural Sciences Section of Soil, Water and Plant Nutrition Thorvaldsensvej 40, DK-1871 Frederiksberg C (Copenhagen), Denmark Phone: + 45 35283499, Fax: + 45 35283460 e-mail: torsten.muller@agsci.kvl.dk <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Fri Mar 8 14:04 EST 1996
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:18:19 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603081818.AA09186@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 482

Contents:
suction cups (Robert Malone .<.rmalone@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>.)
Re: suction cups (Robert Edis .<.Robert_Edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au.>.)
Re: suction cups (Stephen Rawlins .<.srawlins@ncw.net.>.)
Re: suction cups (Robert Edis .<.Robert_Edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au.>.)
Re: suction cups (Stephen Rawlins .<.srawlins@ncw.net.>.)
Re: suction cups (Robert Malone .<.rmalone@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>.)
Turbidimetry ? (novaks@ensaia.u-nancy.fr (Sandra Novak))

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:55:31 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Malone .<.rmalone@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. Subject: suction cups Dear Robert: Research that I am finishing at the University of Kentucky includes comparing weekly soil samples to daily pan lysimeter data on pesticide leaching; the main focus of the research is to compare three plots for metribuzin leaching and runoff (carbon amended conventional-till, no-till, and unamended conventional till) and to model these processes using PRZM2 and GLEAMS. I found little difference between the subsoil samples from the different plots, while the pan lysimeter data showed differences. One of the possible reasons for this is that the subsoil samples are not detecting preferential flow while the pan lysimeters are detecting preferential flow due to their size (2 ft x 2 ft). Since suction lysimeters collect pore water from soil, results should be similiar to soil samples which detect the sorbed solute and the solute in solution. Differences between suction lysimeter data and soil data would be seen if much sample is sorbing to the soil or some part of the suction lysimeter (i.e., ceramic cup, plastic tubing, etc.) Also, dependent upon the amount of suction used (negative pressure), suction lysimeters will fail to extract water and thus solute from the smaller pores (i.e., tightly held water) but soil samples would capture the solute from these pores. Therefore, difference from soil samples and suction lysimeters would exist if the soil contains a significant amount of tightly held water (i.e., clay soils). A disclaimer that I should add to this discussion is that I am far from an expert on the differences between suction lysimeters, pan lysimeters, and soil samples; my main research focus is concerned with organic contaminant transport. Regards, Rob Malone Ph.D. student (scheduled to graduate this spring and still job searching!!!) University of Kentucky Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Lexington, KY 40546 rmalone@bae.uky.edu 606-257-3000 (ext. 262) On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Robert Edis wrote: > Subject: Time: 4:54 PM > OFFICE MEMO intro and cups Date: 1/3/96 > > Dear Colleagues, > greetings. My name is Robert Edis, and I am doing a PhD in Soil Science at > Melbourne University, looking at nitrate leaching. I would like to evaluate > some more the meaning of solute concentrations in suction cups, particularly > in heavy textured soil. So, if people have some info that they haven't > published widely in journals, maybe just in some reports or theses, then I > would very much like to see it. This might include solute concentrations from > lysimeter outflows, or soil sampling, compared to suction cups, for example. > All contributors will receive a copy of the final compilation. > Many thanks and cheers for now (and oh, I think pedologists/taxonomists are > doing good things). > Robert Edis > Department of Agriculture and Resource Management > The University of Melbourne > Parkville, Victoria, 3052 > Australia > > <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 08:55:55 +1000 From: Robert Edis .<.Robert_Edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au.>. Subject: Re: suction cups Reply to: RE>suction cups Rob, thanks for your message, and I agree with all you say about what might be happening, but I have found little data which actually shows a consistent bias in suction cup (suction lysimeters) compared to pan lysimeters or drains at depth greater than the rooting zone. My own work is looking at nitrate produced from O.M. mineralisation, and at 1 m depth in a clay soil the suction cups agree pretty well with the drains, some are more concentrated and some are less concentrated. This suggests to me that it might be just a heterogeneity thing rather than a significantly different population. But then your data might suggest otherwise. The point is, I think, quite important: are suction cups useful for monitoring drainage water but we just need to put lots of 'em in, or, they sample such a significantly different range of pores that they are irrelevant to drainage. cheers Robert Edis ps good luck job hunting -------------------------------------- Date: 8/3/96 6:55 AM To: Robert Edis From: soils-l@unl.edu Dear Robert: Research that I am finishing at the University of Kentucky includes comparing weekly soil samples to daily pan lysimeter data on pesticide leaching; the main focus of the research is to compare three plots for metribuzin leaching and runoff (carbon amended conventional-till, no-till, and unamended conventional till) and to model these processes using PRZM2 and GLEAMS. I found little difference between the subsoil samples from the different plots, while the pan lysimeter data showed differences. One of the possible reasons for this is that the subsoil samples are not detecting preferential flow while the pan lysimeters are detecting preferential flow due to their size (2 ft x 2 ft). Since suction lysimeters collect pore water from soil, results should be similiar to soil samples which detect the sorbed solute and the solute in solution. Differences between suction lysimeter data and soil data would be seen if much sample is sorbing to the soil or some part of the suction lysimeter (i.e., ceramic cup, plastic tubing, etc.) Also, dependent upon the amount of suction used (negative pressure), suction lysimeters will fail to extract water and thus solute from the smaller pores (i.e., tightly held water) but soil samples would capture the solute from these pores. Therefore, difference from soil samples and suction lysimeters would exist if the soil contains a significant amount of tightly held water (i.e., clay soils). A disclaimer that I should add to this discussion is that I am far from an expert on the differences between suction lysimeters, pan lysimeters, and soil samples; my main research focus is concerned with organic contaminant transport. Regards, Rob Malone Ph.D. student (scheduled to graduate this spring and still job searching!!!) University of Kentucky Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Lexington, KY 40546 rmalone@bae.uky.edu 606-257-3000 (ext. 262) On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Robert Edis wrote: > Subject: Time: 4:54 PM > OFFICE MEMO intro and cups Date: 1/3/96 > > Dear Colleagues, > greetings. My name is Robert Edis, and I am doing a PhD in Soil Science at > Melbourne University, looking at nitrate leaching. I would like to evaluate > some more the meaning of solute concentrations in suction cups, particularly > in heavy textured soil. So, if people have some info that they haven't > published widely in journals, maybe just in some reports or theses, then I > would very much like to see it. This might include solute concentrations from > lysimeter outflows, or soil sampling, compared to suction cups, for example. > All contributors will receive a copy of the final compilation. > Many thanks and cheers for now (and oh, I think pedologists/taxonomists are > doing good things). > Robert Edis > Department of Agriculture and Resource Management > The University of Melbourne > Parkville, Victoria, 3052 > Australia > > ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;8 Mar 1996 06:53:23 U Received: from crcnis1.unl.edu by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.0-5 #7200) id .<.01I2352RXPU8001SFX@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au.>. for robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 1996 06:53:08 +1000 Received: by crcnis1.unl.edu id AA18656 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au); Thu, 07 Mar 1996 13:35:28 -0600 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 13:35:28 -0600 From: Robert Malone .<.rmalone@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. Subject: suction cups Sender: soils-l@unl.edu To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>. Errors-to: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu Reply-to: soils-l@unl.edu Message-id: .<.Pine.3.89.9603071024.F115-0100000@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Originator: soils-l@unl.edu version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas <------------------------------>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:56:30 -0800 From: Stephen Rawlins .<.srawlins@ncw.net.>. Subject: Re: suction cups We need to always bear in mind that to compute the quantity (mass flow) of any chemical out the bottom of the rootzone carried by water, we need both the water flux and the concentration of the the chemical in the water. Suction cups, at best, give us only the concentraion. At low leaching, solute concentrations will be high. At high leaching they will be low. But without a measure of the water flux (leaching) these concentrations alone tell us nothing about mass flow. Mass = mass/vol x vol. Steve At 04:03 PM 3/7/96 -0600, you wrote: > Reply to: RE>suction cups > >Rob, thanks for your message, and I agree with all you say about what might be >happening, but I have found little data which actually shows a consistent bias >in suction cup (suction lysimeters) compared to pan lysimeters or drains at >depth greater than the rooting zone. My own work is looking at nitrate >produced from O.M. mineralisation, and at 1 m depth in a clay soil the suction >cups agree pretty well with the drains, some are more concentrated and some >are less concentrated. This suggests to me that it might be just a >heterogeneity thing rather than a significantly different population. But >then your data might suggest otherwise. The point is, I think, quite >important: are suction cups useful for monitoring drainage water but we just >need to put lots of 'em in, or, they sample such a significantly different >range of pores that they are irrelevant to drainage. >cheers >Robert Edis >ps good luck job hunting > >-------------------------------------- >Date: 8/3/96 6:55 AM >To: Robert Edis >From: soils-l@unl.edu > >Dear Robert: > >Research that I am finishing at the University of Kentucky includes >comparing weekly soil samples to daily pan lysimeter data on pesticide >leaching; the main focus of the research is to compare three plots for >metribuzin leaching and runoff (carbon amended conventional-till, no-till, >and unamended conventional till) and to model these processes using >PRZM2 and GLEAMS. I found little difference between the >subsoil samples from the different plots, while the pan lysimeter data >showed differences. One of the possible reasons for this is that the >subsoil samples are not detecting preferential flow while the pan >lysimeters are detecting preferential flow due to their size (2 ft x 2 >ft). > >Since suction lysimeters collect pore water from soil, results >should be similiar to soil samples which detect the sorbed solute and the >solute in solution. Differences between suction lysimeter data and >soil data would be seen if much sample is sorbing to the soil or some >part of the suction lysimeter (i.e., ceramic cup, plastic tubing, etc.) >Also, dependent upon the amount of suction used (negative pressure), >suction lysimeters will fail to extract water and thus solute from the >smaller pores (i.e., tightly held water) but soil samples would capture >the solute from these pores. Therefore, difference from soil samples and >suction lysimeters would exist if the soil contains a significant amount >of tightly held water (i.e., clay soils). A disclaimer that I should add >to this discussion is that I am far from an expert on the differences >between suction lysimeters, pan lysimeters, and soil samples; my main >research focus is concerned with organic contaminant transport. > >Regards, > >Rob Malone >Ph.D. student >(scheduled to graduate this spring and still job searching!!!) >University of Kentucky >Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering >Lexington, KY 40546 >rmalone@bae.uky.edu >606-257-3000 (ext. 262) > > > > > >On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Robert Edis wrote: > >> Subject: Time: 4:54 PM >> OFFICE MEMO intro and cups Date: 1/3/96 >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> greetings. My name is Robert Edis, and I am doing a PhD in Soil Science at >> Melbourne University, looking at nitrate leaching. I would like to evaluate >> some more the meaning of solute concentrations in suction cups, particularly >> in heavy textured soil. So, if people have some info that they haven't >> published widely in journals, maybe just in some reports or theses, then I >> would very much like to see it. This might include solute concentrations >from >> lysimeter outflows, or soil sampling, compared to suction cups, for example. > >> All contributors will receive a copy of the final compilation. >> Many thanks and cheers for now (and oh, I think pedologists/taxonomists are >> doing good things). >> Robert Edis >> Department of Agriculture and Resource Management >> The University of Melbourne >> Parkville, Victoria, 3052 >> Australia >> >> > > > > > >------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ >Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;8 Mar 1996 06:53:23 U >Received: from crcnis1.unl.edu by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.0-5 >#7200) > id .<.01I2352RXPU8001SFX@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au.>. for > robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 1996 06:53:08 +1000 >Received: by crcnis1.unl.edu id AA18656 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au); Thu, > 07 Mar 1996 13:35:28 -0600 >Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 13:35:28 -0600 >From: Robert Malone .<.rmalone@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. >Subject: suction cups >Sender: soils-l@unl.edu >To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>. >Errors-to: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu >Reply-to: soils-l@unl.edu >Message-id: .<.Pine.3.89.9603071024.F115-0100000@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Originator: soils-l@unl.edu >version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas > > > > > USDA/ARS -- Retired Richland, WA 9352 APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS Phone 509-627-4943 (Precision Farming Consultants) FAX 509-627-1841 2638 Eastwood Avenue Email srawlins@ncw.net <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 13:30:04 +1000 From: Robert Edis .<.Robert_Edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au.>. Subject: Re: suction cups Reply to: RE>>suction cups sure, but I think the concentration term is the one with which we have the most trouble, whether it be nutrients, pesticides, or heavy metals. Cheers Robert -------------------------------------- Date: 8/3/96 10:24 AM To: Robert Edis From: soils-l@unl.edu We need to always bear in mind that to compute the quantity (mass flow) of any chemical out the bottom of the rootzone carried by water, we need both the water flux and the concentration of the the chemical in the water. Suction cups, at best, give us only the concentraion. At low leaching, solute concentrations will be high. At high leaching they will be low. But without a measure of the water flux (leaching) these concentrations alone tell us nothing about mass flow. Mass = mass/vol x vol. Steve At 04:03 PM 3/7/96 -0600, you wrote: > Reply to: RE>suction cups > >Rob, thanks for your message, and I agree with all you say about what might be >happening, but I have found little data which actually shows a consistent bias >in suction cup (suction lysimeters) compared to pan lysimeters or drains at >depth greater than the rooting zone. My own work is looking at nitrate >produced from O.M. mineralisation, and at 1 m depth in a clay soil the suction >cups agree pretty well with the drains, some are more concentrated and some >are less concentrated. This suggests to me that it might be just a >heterogeneity thing rather than a significantly different population. But >then your data might suggest otherwise. The point is, I think, quite >important: are suction cups useful for monitoring drainage water but we just >need to put lots of 'em in, or, they sample such a significantly different >range of pores that they are irrelevant to drainage. >cheers >Robert Edis >ps good luck job hunting > >-------------------------------------- >Date: 8/3/96 6:55 AM >To: Robert Edis >From: soils-l@unl.edu > >Dear Robert: > >Research that I am finishing at the University of Kentucky includes >comparing weekly soil samples to daily pan lysimeter data on pesticide >leaching; the main focus of the research is to compare three plots for >metribuzin leaching and runoff (carbon amended conventional-till, no-till, >and unamended conventional till) and to model these processes using >PRZM2 and GLEAMS. I found little difference between the >subsoil samples from the different plots, while the pan lysimeter data >showed differences. One of the possible reasons for this is that the >subsoil samples are not detecting preferential flow while the pan >lysimeters are detecting preferential flow due to their size (2 ft x 2 >ft). > >Since suction lysimeters collect pore water from soil, results >should be similiar to soil samples which detect the sorbed solute and the >solute in solution. Differences between suction lysimeter data and >soil data would be seen if much sample is sorbing to the soil or some >part of the suction lysimeter (i.e., ceramic cup, plastic tubing, etc.) >Also, dependent upon the amount of suction used (negative pressure), >suction lysimeters will fail to extract water and thus solute from the >smaller pores (i.e., tightly held water) but soil samples would capture >the solute from these pores. Therefore, difference from soil samples and >suction lysimeters would exist if the soil contains a significant amount >of tightly held water (i.e., clay soils). A disclaimer that I should add >to this discussion is that I am far from an expert on the differences >between suction lysimeters, pan lysimeters, and soil samples; my main >research focus is concerned with organic contaminant transport. > >Regards, > >Rob Malone >Ph.D. student >(scheduled to graduate this spring and still job searching!!!) >University of Kentucky >Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering >Lexington, KY 40546 >rmalone@bae.uky.edu >606-257-3000 (ext. 262) > > > > > >On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Robert Edis wrote: > >> Subject: Time: 4:54 PM >> OFFICE MEMO intro and cups Date: 1/3/96 >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> greetings. My name is Robert Edis, and I am doing a PhD in Soil Science at >> Melbourne University, looking at nitrate leaching. I would like to evaluate >> some more the meaning of solute concentrations in suction cups, particularly >> in heavy textured soil. So, if people have some info that they haven't >> published widely in journals, maybe just in some reports or theses, then I >> would very much like to see it. This might include solute concentrations >from >> lysimeter outflows, or soil sampling, compared to suction cups, for example. > >> All contributors will receive a copy of the final compilation. >> Many thanks and cheers for now (and oh, I think pedologists/taxonomists are >> doing good things). >> Robert Edis >> Department of Agriculture and Resource Management >> The University of Melbourne >> Parkville, Victoria, 3052 >> Australia >> >> > > > > > >------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ >Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;8 Mar 1996 06:53:23 U >Received: from crcnis1.unl.edu by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.0-5 >#7200) > id .<.01I2352RXPU8001SFX@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au.>. for > robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 1996 06:53:08 +1000 >Received: by crcnis1.unl.edu id AA18656 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au); Thu, > 07 Mar 1996 13:35:28 -0600 >Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 13:35:28 -0600 >From: Robert Malone .<.rmalone@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. >Subject: suction cups >Sender: soils-l@unl.edu >To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>. >Errors-to: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu >Reply-to: soils-l@unl.edu >Message-id: .<.Pine.3.89.9603071024.F115-0100000@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Originator: soils-l@unl.edu >version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas > > > > > USDA/ARS -- Retired Richland, WA 9352 APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS Phone 509-627-4943 (Precision Farming Consultants) FAX 509-627-1841 2638 Eastwood Avenue Email srawlins@ncw.net ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;8 Mar 1996 10:22:57 U Received: from crcnis1.unl.edu by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.0-5 #7200) id .<.01I23CEK1ZDC001CNS@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au.>. for robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 1996 10:22:42 +1000 Received: by crcnis1.unl.edu id AA23620 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au); Thu, 07 Mar 1996 16:59:16 -0600 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 16:59:16 -0600 From: Stephen Rawlins .<.srawlins@ncw.net.>. Subject: Re: suction cups Sender: soils-l@unl.edu To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>. Errors-to: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu Reply-to: soils-l@unl.edu Message-id: .<.199603072256.OAA25183@bing.ncw.net.>. Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Originator: soils-l@unl.edu version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 06:56:27 -0800 From: Stephen Rawlins .<.srawlins@ncw.net.>. Subject: Re: suction cups At 08:31 PM 3/7/96 -0600, you wrote: > Reply to: RE>>suction cups > >sure, but I think the concentration term is the one with which we have the >most trouble, whether it be nutrients, pesticides, or heavy metals. >Cheers Robert > If this is true, I certainly would like to know how your measure flux. Steve USDA/ARS -- Retired Richland, WA 9352 APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS Phone 509-627-4943 (Precision Farming Consultants) FAX 509-627-1841 2638 Eastwood Avenue Email srawlins@ncw.net <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:33:53 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Malone .<.rmalone@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. Subject: Re: suction cups Robert: One more thing you may be interested in is that the only time pan lysimeter effluent was found in my research was after a significant rainfall. Suction lysimeters would likely fail to capture a sample during an actual leaching event unless uncommon steps were taken (i.e., manually operate suction lysimeters during rainfall or set up instrumentation for this). The suction lysimeters would normally only capture the residual soil water remaining after a leaching event. Also, if you're interested in obtaining solute mass flux, I agree with Dr. Rawlins that you somehow need to determine water flux. Anyhow, I'll send you a technical paper I've written that addresses this issue to an extent. Regards, Rob Malone Ph.D. Student (scheduled to graduate this spring and still job searching!!!) University of Kentucky Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Lexington, KY 40546 rmalone@bae.uky.edu 606-257-3000 (ext. 262) On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Robert Edis wrote: > Reply to: RE>suction cups > > Rob, thanks for your message, and I agree with all you say about what might be > happening, but I have found little data which actually shows a consistent bias > in suction cup (suction lysimeters) compared to pan lysimeters or drains at > depth greater than the rooting zone. My own work is looking at nitrate > produced from O.M. mineralisation, and at 1 m depth in a clay soil the suction > cups agree pretty well with the drains, some are more concentrated and some > are less concentrated. This suggests to me that it might be just a > heterogeneity thing rather than a significantly different population. But > then your data might suggest otherwise. The point is, I think, quite > important: are suction cups useful for monitoring drainage water but we just > need to put lots of 'em in, or, they sample such a significantly different > range of pores that they are irrelevant to drainage. > cheers > Robert Edis > ps good luck job hunting > > -------------------------------------- > Date: 8/3/96 6:55 AM > To: Robert Edis > From: soils-l@unl.edu > > Dear Robert: > > Research that I am finishing at the University of Kentucky includes > comparing weekly soil samples to daily pan lysimeter data on pesticide > leaching; the main focus of the research is to compare three plots for > metribuzin leaching and runoff (carbon amended conventional-till, no-till, > and unamended conventional till) and to model these processes using > PRZM2 and GLEAMS. I found little difference between the > subsoil samples from the different plots, while the pan lysimeter data > showed differences. One of the possible reasons for this is that the > subsoil samples are not detecting preferential flow while the pan > lysimeters are detecting preferential flow due to their size (2 ft x 2 > ft). > > Since suction lysimeters collect pore water from soil, results > should be similiar to soil samples which detect the sorbed solute and the > solute in solution. Differences between suction lysimeter data and > soil data would be seen if much sample is sorbing to the soil or some > part of the suction lysimeter (i.e., ceramic cup, plastic tubing, etc.) > Also, dependent upon the amount of suction used (negative pressure), > suction lysimeters will fail to extract water and thus solute from the > smaller pores (i.e., tightly held water) but soil samples would capture > the solute from these pores. Therefore, difference from soil samples and > suction lysimeters would exist if the soil contains a significant amount > of tightly held water (i.e., clay soils). A disclaimer that I should add > to this discussion is that I am far from an expert on the differences > between suction lysimeters, pan lysimeters, and soil samples; my main > research focus is concerned with organic contaminant transport. > > Regards, > > Rob Malone > Ph.D. student > (scheduled to graduate this spring and still job searching!!!) > University of Kentucky > Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering > Lexington, KY 40546 > rmalone@bae.uky.edu > 606-257-3000 (ext. 262) > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Robert Edis wrote: > > > Subject: Time: 4:54 PM > > OFFICE MEMO intro and cups Date: 1/3/96 > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > greetings. My name is Robert Edis, and I am doing a PhD in Soil Science at > > Melbourne University, looking at nitrate leaching. I would like to evaluate > > some more the meaning of solute concentrations in suction cups, particularly > > in heavy textured soil. So, if people have some info that they haven't > > published widely in journals, maybe just in some reports or theses, then I > > would very much like to see it. This might include solute concentrations > from > > lysimeter outflows, or soil sampling, compared to suction cups, for example. > > > All contributors will receive a copy of the final compilation. > > Many thanks and cheers for now (and oh, I think pedologists/taxonomists are > > doing good things). > > Robert Edis > > Department of Agriculture and Resource Management > > The University of Melbourne > > Parkville, Victoria, 3052 > > Australia > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ > Received: by muwayf.unimelb.edu.au with SMTP;8 Mar 1996 06:53:23 U > Received: from crcnis1.unl.edu by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.0-5 > #7200) > id .<.01I2352RXPU8001SFX@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au.>. for > robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 1996 06:53:08 +1000 > Received: by crcnis1.unl.edu id AA18656 > (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for robert_edis@muwayf.unimelb.edu.au); Thu, > 07 Mar 1996 13:35:28 -0600 > Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 13:35:28 -0600 > From: Robert Malone .<.rmalone@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. > Subject: suction cups > Sender: soils-l@unl.edu > To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>. > Errors-to: jp@unlinfo.unl.edu > Reply-to: soils-l@unl.edu > Message-id: .<.Pine.3.89.9603071024.F115-0100000@groucho.bae.uky.edu.>. > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Originator: soils-l@unl.edu > version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas > > > > <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 18:12:08 +0100 From: novaks@ensaia.u-nancy.fr (Sandra Novak) Subject: Turbidimetry ? Hi, I would have a question about the way of measuring sediment content of (drain) water. I have the possibility to use a "turbidimetre" (sorry but I don't know the english word for it !). It's a tool that measure the sediment content by diffusion of a light beam. But I don't understand the unit that is used (NTU = Nephelometry Turbidimetric Unit), I would prefer to have it in g of sediments per l of water. I have also problems to get a stability with this tool. So I think it would be perhaps better to weight the dry sediment after filtration. But I would prefer a 3rd (quicker) solution. Does someone have it, or could someone explain me the NTU meaning ? Thank you, Sandra ************************************************************************** Sandra NOVAK Soil and Environment Department ENSAIA-INPL, BP 172, F-54505 VANDOEUVRE-LES-NANCY, FRANCE Phone : + 83 59 58 45 ########################################################################## <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sat Mar 9 14:16 EST 1996
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 12:18:40 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603091818.AA27330@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 483

Contents:
Turbidimetry ? (Byron Bodo .<.bodo@io.org.>.)
New Member Introduction (Bernard James Peasley .<.s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 13:38:12 -0500 From: Byron Bodo .<.bodo@io.org.>. Subject: Turbidimetry ? > >I would have a question about the way of measuring sediment content of >(drain) water. I have the possibility to use a "turbidimetre" (sorry but I >don't know the english word for it !). It's a tool that measure the >sediment content by diffusion of a light beam. But I don't understand the >unit that is used (NTU = Nephelometry Turbidimetric Unit), I would prefer >to have it in g of sediments per l of water. I have also problems to get a >stability with this tool. So I think it would be perhaps better to weight >the dry sediment after filtration. But I would prefer a 3rd (quicker) >solution. > >Does someone have it, or could someone explain me the NTU meaning ? > The instrument measures light transmission & is calibrated in NTU units according to standard emulsions or solutions containing fine particles. Generally, to use turbidity measurements to predict suspended sediment or suspended solids concentrations, you have to have a good data set of concurrent measurement at your field site to develop a calibration curve. Many of the lab people will warn you that turbidity and sediment/solids measurements are not compatible which is true in a restricted sense. Within narrow ranges of SS (suspended solids) concentrations the correlation may be poor because turbidity measurements are affected by colour (essentially micro particles / macro molecules of organic matter that pass standard filters ). However, over a broad range of SS concentrations say at a particular stream site, the correlations can be very good. Still there may be a lot of scatter & you usually have to develop the relationship on a log-log scale. Depending on your objectives, you may to do the SS measurements directly. -bb <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 19:16:48 +1100 (EST) From: Bernard James Peasley .<.s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU.>. Subject: New Member Introduction To all Soils-L subscribers. =20 My name is Bernard Peasley and I have only recently subscribed to Soils-L. =20 My first degree was in Mechanical Engineering (1973) and I am a partner=20 in a small, independent irrigation design consultancy in Melbourne,=20 Australia. I am also a student at Melbourne University studying for a=20 Graduate Diploma of Soil Science (Hello Robert Edis!) and completing a=20 Masters in Environmental Engineering.=20 =20 My work involves both the design and assessment of irrigation systems for= =20 agricultural/horticultural crops, wastewater reuse and landscape. My=20 academic interests centre around the disposal of wastes on land=20 (wastewater reuse) and soil contamination. I will be completing my=20 Masters thesis throughout '96 and the topic will be concerned with the=20 integration of soil bioremediation techniques with oil spill mitigation=20 strategies in a marine environment. =20 I believe that although soil contamination is generally dealt with by the= =20 environmental engineering field (in AUS at least), soil scientists should= =20 play a far greater role. By blending engineering and soil science I hope=20 to enhance my understanding of the fragility of soil as well as its great= =20 capacity to assimilate wastes and reduce pollution. =20 I have subscribed to Soils-L because it provides contact with a wide=20 network of researchers, some of which I'm sure will have valuable=20 suggestions for various aspects of my topic as it unfolds during the=20 year. This introduction may also put me in contact with others working in= =20 the same direction. =20 Jerome Pier (jp@unl.edu) has asked for "one burning question" to=20 accompany this introduction. Here it is: =20 SOIL RESISTIVITY FROM ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY =20 Engineers frequently use soil resistivity to assess the corrosion=20 potential of soil with respect to metallic pipework. Corrosion of=20 metallic pipes is considered to be dependent on: =20 Soil Resistivity=20 pH Soil Redox Potential Sulphides present Moisture Content =20 Soil Resistivity is the most critical of the criteria but must be=20 measured by a Resistivity probe or a soil box. The ranges of Resistivity=20 (R, Ohm.cm from soil box measurements) corresponding to different levels=20 of corrosion risk are generally as follows (Nouail et al, 1993 -=20 Pont-A-Mousson Corrosion Protection Policy, France): =20 R < 750 Very Highly Corrosive 750 =B2 R < 1500 Highly Corrosive 1500 =B2 R < 2500 Corrosive 2500 =B2 R < 5000 Slightly Corrosive R =B3 5000 Non Corrosive =20 Is it possible (or even valid) to convert the Soil Electrical Conductivity (micro S/cm) of a 1:5 soil/water solution (EC 1:5) to a Soil Resistivity=20 value (Ohm.cm) for corrosion prediction. I imagine that the EC 1:5 would=20 need to be converted to ECe for the particular soil type, but then can=20 this be further converted empirically to Soil Resistivity. There is a=20 method suggested by the US Salinity Laboratory (Diagnosis and Improvement= =20 of Saline & Alkali Soils, p16) but it relates to a Bureau of Soils=20 electrode cup (is this the same as a resistivity soil box?) and the=20 conversion is highly dependent on the saturation percentage. Since the=20 purpose behind this particular method was soil salinity assessment and=20 not corrosion potential, I wonder if it could be valid. =20 Does any one know of a valid empirical conversion between Resistivity=20 (measured with a probe or saturated soil box) & ECe. High accuracy is not= =20 necessarily paramount, since we are interested only in providing pipe=20 protection if the potential exists and we have a great deal of EC 1:5=20 data already. =20 I look forward to future postings. =20 Regards =20 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= ++++ Bernard Peasley PO Box 25 Brunswick West VICTORIA 3055 Melbourne Australia =20 Email: Bernard Peasley .<.s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU.>. =20 Business Hours: After Hours: All Hours: Ph: + 61 3 9818 1655 Ph: + 61 3 9375 7485 Mobile: + 61 19 335 74= 1 Fx: + 61 3 9818 1722 Fx: + 61 3 9375 7489 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= ++++ =20 <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Mon Mar 11 11:49 EST 1996
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:23:25 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603111623.AA17629@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 484

Contents:
re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion ("Ken Buhr / KLB@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU on Internet" .<.KLB@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:59:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Ken Buhr / KLB@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU on Internet" .<.KLB@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu.>. Subject: re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion Hi Folks, Several months ago, there were some messages posted on the "soil organic matter" issues. A colleague in Texas made the observation that there may be a connection between the declining soil organic matter and increased flooding. (This discussion must have been back when the Mississippi was flooding.) I would appreciate it if someone would point me to recent data on the issue of the decline on soil organic matter and consequent implications. Also, if anyone recalls who the poster was who made the observation about declining OM and floods possibly being related. Thanks. Ken Buhr, Agronomy, U of Florida, klb@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Tue Mar 12 14:15 EST 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:33:56 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603121633.AA18446@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 485

Contents:
     Re: re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion (DON WAUCHOPE .<.DON@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu.>.)
RE: whereabouts of Masanobu Fukuoka (Gordon Kayahara .<.kayahara@unixg.ubc.ca.>.)
Re: New Member Introduction (tomt@teleport.com (Tom Thomson))
Graduate schools (Alexander Nidorf .<.alexander.nidorf@linacre.oxford.ac.uk.>.)
Re: re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion (marino@veneto.shineline.it (Marino Perelli))
Re: re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion ("Ken Buhr / KLB@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU on Internet" .<.KLB@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu.>.)
Re: Graduate schools (hperry@forestry.umn.edu (C. Hobart Perry))
Re: re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion (steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu (Steve Diver))

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 11:52:09 EST From: DON WAUCHOPE .<.DON@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu.>. Subject: Re: re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion On Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:52:54 -0600 Ken Buhr / KLB@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU on Internet s >Hi Folks, > Several months ago, there were some messages posted on the >"soil organic matter" issues. A colleague in Texas made the observation >that there may be a connection between the declining soil organic matter >and increased flooding. (This discussion must have been back when the >Mississippi was flooding.)... Coincidentally, I was just reading a review by R.L. Wershaw In Environ. Sci. and Technol. in which he made the statement, "...The water permeability of two soils of indentical mineralogical composition and grain size distribution generally will be higher iin the soil of higher humus content..." vol. 27, pp 814-816 (1993) <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:28:02 -0800 (PST) From: Gordon Kayahara .<.kayahara@unixg.ubc.ca.>. Subject: RE: whereabouts of Masanobu Fukuoka Greetings to fellow soil-internetters, Does anyone know the address of author and agricutluralist, Masanobu Fukuoka (author "The one straw revolution", "The road back to nature", "The natural way of farming")? I would greatly appreciate any information on how to contact him. Thank you, Gordon <----------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Gordon J. Kayahara UBC Forest Sciences phone: (604)822-9547 fax: (604)822-5744 e-mail: kayahara@unixg.ubc.ca "We know more about the movement of celestial bodies than about the soil underfoot." ...Leonardo da Vinci <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 22:36:01 -0800 From: tomt@teleport.com (Tom Thomson) Subject: Re: New Member Introduction Digging into the depths of my longterm memory I come up with the fact that we used to measure soil EC in the units of "mho" millimho/cm to be specific. This was transmetricfied to Siemens when we joined the rest of the world. If one spells mho in reverse we obtain "ohm" which is what we are actually measuring - the inverse amount of resistance between the two electrodes of the EC probe or conductivity. >To all Soils-L subscribers. >=20 >My name is Bernard Peasley and I have only recently subscribed to Soils-L. >=20 >My first degree was in Mechanical Engineering (1973) and I am a partner=20 >in a small, independent irrigation design consultancy in Melbourne,=20 >Australia. I am also a student at Melbourne University studying for a=20 >Graduate Diploma of Soil Science (Hello Robert Edis!) and completing a=20 >Masters in Environmental Engineering.=20 >=20 >My work involves both the design and assessment of irrigation systems for= >=20 >agricultural/horticultural crops, wastewater reuse and landscape. My=20 >academic interests centre around the disposal of wastes on land=20 >(wastewater reuse) and soil contamination. I will be completing my=20 >Masters thesis throughout '96 and the topic will be concerned with the=20 >integration of soil bioremediation techniques with oil spill mitigation=20 >strategies in a marine environment. >=20 >I believe that although soil contamination is generally dealt with by the= >=20 >environmental engineering field (in AUS at least), soil scientists should= >=20 >play a far greater role. By blending engineering and soil science I hope=20 >to enhance my understanding of the fragility of soil as well as its great= >=20 >capacity to assimilate wastes and reduce pollution. >=20 >I have subscribed to Soils-L because it provides contact with a wide=20 >network of researchers, some of which I'm sure will have valuable=20 >suggestions for various aspects of my topic as it unfolds during the=20 >year. This introduction may also put me in contact with others working in= >=20 >the same direction. >=20 >Jerome Pier (jp@unl.edu) has asked for "one burning question" to=20 >accompany this introduction. Here it is: >=20 >SOIL RESISTIVITY FROM ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY >=20 >Engineers frequently use soil resistivity to assess the corrosion=20 >potential of soil with respect to metallic pipework. Corrosion of=20 >metallic pipes is considered to be dependent on: >=20 > Soil Resistivity=20 > pH > Soil Redox Potential > Sulphides present > Moisture Content >=20 >Soil Resistivity is the most critical of the criteria but must be=20 >measured by a Resistivity probe or a soil box. The ranges of Resistivity=20 >(R, Ohm.cm from soil box measurements) corresponding to different levels=20 >of corrosion risk are generally as follows (Nouail et al, 1993 -=20 >Pont-A-Mousson Corrosion Protection Policy, France): >=20 > R < 750 Very Highly Corrosive > 750 =B2 R < 1500 Highly Corrosive > 1500 =B2 R < 2500 Corrosive > 2500 =B2 R < 5000 Slightly Corrosive > R =B3 5000 Non Corrosive >=20 >Is it possible (or even valid) to convert the Soil Electrical Conductivity >(micro S/cm) of a 1:5 soil/water solution (EC 1:5) to a Soil Resistivity=20 >value (Ohm.cm) for corrosion prediction. I imagine that the EC 1:5 would=20 >need to be converted to ECe for the particular soil type, but then can=20 >this be further converted empirically to Soil Resistivity. There is a=20 >method suggested by the US Salinity Laboratory (Diagnosis and Improvement= >=20 >of Saline & Alkali Soils, p16) but it relates to a Bureau of Soils=20 >electrode cup (is this the same as a resistivity soil box?) and the=20 >conversion is highly dependent on the saturation percentage. Since the=20 >purpose behind this particular method was soil salinity assessment and=20 >not corrosion potential, I wonder if it could be valid. >=20 >Does any one know of a valid empirical conversion between Resistivity=20 >(measured with a probe or saturated soil box) & ECe. High accuracy is not= >=20 >necessarily paramount, since we are interested only in providing pipe=20 >protection if the potential exists and we have a great deal of EC 1:5=20 >data already. >=20 >I look forward to future postings. >=20 >Regards >=20 >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= >++++ >Bernard Peasley >PO Box 25 >Brunswick West VICTORIA 3055 >Melbourne Australia >=20 >Email: Bernard Peasley .<.s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU.>. >=20 >Business Hours: After Hours: All Hours: >Ph: + 61 3 9818 1655 Ph: + 61 3 9375 7485 Mobile: + 61 19 335 74= >1 >Fx: + 61 3 9818 1722 Fx: + 61 3 9375 7489 >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= >++++ >=20 > > Tom Thomson Northwest Agricultural Consulting "The only difference between a problem and a solution is that people understand the solution." Charles Kettering <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:43:16 +0000 From: Alexander Nidorf .<.alexander.nidorf@linacre.oxford.ac.uk.>. Subject: Graduate schools Dear list recipeints, Currently I am doing a masters course in environemental management ( my concentration is on soils and soil conservation). After I finish this degree I'd like to do a PHD in soil science in the US. I am particularly interested in soil fertility regeneration and tropical soils. I would like to ask for some advice about where the best soils/agronomy departments are in the US to study these topics. If anyone has any advice I'd appreciate it. I actually went to college at the Univeristy of Wisconsin Madison, but I wasn't studying soils, and I don't have a very good idea of were the best places are to study tropicals soils/soil fertility. Thanks. Alexander John Nidorf Linacre College Oxford OX1 3JA United Kingdom e-mail: alexander.nidorf@linacre.oxford.ac.uk <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:50:32 +0100 From: marino@veneto.shineline.it (Marino Perelli) Subject: Re: re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion Ken Buhr wrote about soil organic matter and flooding. In my experience, flooding increases the soil organic matter, both for organic matter deposition and, especially, for reducing soil oxygenation. Reclaimed soils are often very rich in organic matter and peat deposits were formed on flooded soils (in Florida too). Marino --------------------------------------- Marino Perelli free-lance agronomist Via Puccini, 11 - 30034 Mira VE - Italy voice: +39 41 421995 fax: +39 41 421995 (from Italy: 041-421995) E-mail: marino@veneto.shineline.it --------------------------------------- <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:04:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Ken Buhr / KLB@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU on Internet" .<.KLB@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu.>. Subject: Re: re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion Marino Perelli commented on the relationship between flooded soils and high organic matter, the link between anaerobic conditions and organic matter buildup. Good point. My questioning and curiosity goes the other direction - if we are witnessing a decline in percent organic matter content in our cultivated soils (someone may want to comment on whether that is true or not), can we also expect that will lead to decreased infiltration, to increased runoff, and consequently, to flooding problems? We can also expect decreased soil moisture availability for crops, some impact on evapotranspiration, and would it not be reasonable to expect that there may be some impact on weather, possibly shortened growing seasons (as defined by moisture availability)? Am I missing something? Ken Buhr, Agronomy, U of Florida, klb@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:40:38 -0600 From: hperry@forestry.umn.edu (C. Hobart Perry) Subject: Re: Graduate schools >Dear list recipeints, > >Currently I am doing a masters course in environemental management ( my >concentration is on soils and soil conservation). After I finish this degree >I'd like to do a PHD in soil science in the US. I am particularly interested >in soil fertility regeneration and tropical soils. I would like to ask for >some advice about where the best soils/agronomy departments are in the US to >study these topics. If anyone has any advice I'd appreciate it. I actually >went to college at the Univeristy of Wisconsin Madison, but I wasn't >studying soils, and I don't have a very good idea of were the best places >are to study tropicals soils/soil fertility. Thanks. > > > >Alexander John Nidorf >Linacre College >Oxford OX1 3JA >United Kingdom >e-mail: alexander.nidorf@linacre.oxford.ac.uk Dear Alexander, You might try contacting the Soils Department at the University of Minnesota. I believe they have some interests in tropical soils, particularly Dr. Paul Bloom. They have a web page as well: http://www.soils.umn.edu/ I believe that some cooperation/interaction occurs with our department (Forest Resources) where some folks also have interests in tropical soils, especially Drs. Peter Reich and Paul Bolstad. If you would like more information, let me know. Yours, Hobie Perry -- C. Hobart Perry hperry@forestry.umn.edu Dept. Forest Resources 612-625-5765 University of Minnesota, St. Paul 612-625-5212 (fax) <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:05:01 -0600 (CST) From: steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu (Steve Diver) Subject: Re: re-visiting the soil organic matter discussion > My questioning and curiosity goes the other direction - if we are witnessing > a decline in percent organic matter content in our cultivated soils (someone > may want to comment on whether that is true or not), can we also expect > that will lead to decreased infiltration, to increased runoff, and > consequently, to flooding problems? > > Ken Buhr, Agronomy, U of Florida, klb@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Yes, these observations make sense. For a farm advisor like myself, it is a regular component of extension and educational programs to emphasize the need to pay attention to the organic matter, humification, and microbial activity situation and get on with implementing a biological farming approach for these reasons, and to supply crop fertility and pest control. One article from a farm magazine comes to mind. A citrus grower in South Texas switched to a biological farming system (meaning an emphasis on biological proceses-cover crops, composts, animal manures, microbial inoculants--and natural rock powders rather than sole reliance on chemical fertilizers) and thereby increased soil humus enough to cut down on irrigation needs. Since humus has a high water holding capacity, an increase in humus can certainly reduce the need for irrigation, or get you through a drought in better condition than you otherwise would have fared. In the last few years, information that supports this whole angle has mushroomed. Elaine Ingham's research on microbial communities in soils is instrumental in this discussion. An author search on AGRICOLA will turn up a list of citations. She currently offers a microbial bioassay through a lab at Oregon State. Innovative farmers and composters are using this service and making adjustments in their soil and compost programs based on these results. Inghams' work is balanced very nicely by the work of Siegfied Luebke, a microbiologist-farmer from Austria, who with his family developed the Controlled Microbial Composting technique. The Luebkes are teaching seminars to farmers on how to manage humus and measure results with four tests: (1) percent organic matter, (2) colorimetric humus test, (3) circular chromatography, and (4) potential pH Coupled with soil programs, there is great interest in farming circles with compost teas, foliar fertilizers, and microbial inoculants to influence the phyllosphere in addition to the rhizosphere. One farm in California made a compost tea from Luebke compost and applied it to celery at 200 gallons per acre as a foliar drench at a cost of $0.10 per gallon. It wets not only the transplant but also runs down the stem and inoculates the soil. They packed out 100 extra boxes of celery per acre. They are also land applying 5 tons of Luebke compost per acre, on soils that have not seen a biological amendment for 15 years. They need no further data to convince them that the results are enormous. Steve Diver ATTRA - Sustainable Farming Information Center <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Wed Mar 13 11:53 EST 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:34:49 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603131634.AA21850@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 486

Contents:
Compost and sustainable agriculture seminar ("Robert L. Wershaw" .<.rwershaw@usgs.gov.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 09:19:23 +0000 From: "Robert L. Wershaw" .<.rwershaw@usgs.gov.>. Subject: Compost and sustainable agriculture seminar I would like to call your attention to the Rocky Mountain Conference symposium on Composting and Sustainable Agriculture to be held in Denver, CO, July 21-26, 1996. At the present time I am soliciting abstracts for the meeting. Anyone who would like to make a presentation at the meeting should contact me for further information. My address is: R. L. Wershaw, U.S. Geol. Survey, Mail Stop 408, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225, email rwershaw@usgs.gov. Robert L. Wershaw <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Thu Mar 14 18:58 EST 1996
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 17:48:49 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603142348.AA17364@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 487

Contents:
     unsubscribe (GLRIGSBY@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 18:38:35 EST From: GLRIGSBY@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU Subject: unsubscribe <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sun Mar 17 01:10 EST 1996
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 00:01:16 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603170601.AA06205@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 488

Contents:
Organic Matter Discussion (Bernard Peasley .<.s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 16:57:41 +1100 (EST) From: Bernard Peasley .<.s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU.>. Subject: Organic Matter Discussion I would like to catch up on the current discussion concerning the effect of Organic Matter on permeability, but have only witnessed postings since the DON WAUCHOPE .<.DON@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu.>. posting on Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:06:23 -0600. I hope the following queries do not digress too far. Does it always follow that increased Organic Matter results in increased "plant available water", or is this just the indirect effect of the added OM reducing the bulk density? If this is so, would the effect be the same for a sandy soil as a heavier textured soil? I am trying to establish what the variables under discussion might be. The statement by R.L. Wershaw In Environ. Sci.and Technol.- "... The water permeability of two soils of indentical mineralogical composition and grain size distribution generally will be higher in the soil of higher humus content..." vol. 27, pp 814-816 (1993), appears to suggest some other mechanisms other than the physical properties of the soils. Is it the direct presence of OM that increases permeability, or the indirect effect on soil physical properties? Are there other mechanisms at work, considering the organic matter fraction should have higher water absorption than the mineral fraction? Regards Bernard Peasley s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Mon Mar 18 01:11 EST 1996
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:01:28 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603180601.AA16059@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 489

Contents:
Re: unsubscribe (Ken Euteneier .<.mjwater@maple.net.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 12:33:42 -0500 From: Ken Euteneier .<.mjwater@maple.net.>. Subject: Re: unsubscribe <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Tue Mar 19 01:20 EST 1996
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:01:42 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603190601.AA22822@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 490

Contents:
unsubscribe (magnus.simonsson@mv.slu.se (Magnus Simonsson))
unsubscribe (magnus.simonsson@mv.slu.se (Magnus Simonsson))
Unsubscribe (Ulrika Rosengren .<.Ulrika.Rosengren-Brinck@planteco.lu.se.>.)
Agritech Spring '96 Update ("Warren E. Clark" .<.ag-pr@agpr.com.>.)
Re: Organic Matter Discussion ("J.D. Oster" .<.oster@mail.ucr.edu.>.)
parent material (Maribeth Milner .<.milner@townsqr.com.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:10:25 +0100 From: magnus.simonsson@mv.slu.se (Magnus Simonsson) Subject: unsubscribe ____________________________________________________ Magnus Simonsson Avd f=F6r markl=E4ra Box 7014 750 07 UPSALA Telefon: 018 - 67 25 93; telefax: 018 - 67 27 95 Datorpost: magnus.simonsson@mv.slu.se ____________________________________________________ <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:12:15 +0100 From: magnus.simonsson@mv.slu.se (Magnus Simonsson) Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe soils-l magnus simonsson <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 11:16:03 +0100 From: Ulrika Rosengren .<.Ulrika.Rosengren-Brinck@planteco.lu.se.>. Subject: Unsubscribe __________________________________________________ Ulrika Rosengren-Brinck,PhD Forest Ecology, Dept. of Ecology Lund University, Ecology Building S-223 62 Lund, Sweden Tel: +46 46 222 9561 Fax: +46 46 222 4423 E-mail: Ulrika.Rosengren-Brinck@Planteco.lu.se =20 <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:54:48 -0600 (CST) From: "Warren E. Clark" .<.ag-pr@agpr.com.>. Subject: Agritech Spring '96 Update (Note: Please feel free to copy and pass along to anyone you feel might be interested. Thanks.) Agritech Spring '96 by Clark Consulting International, Inc. on behalf of the Government of Israel Economic Mission Contact: Warren E. Clark e-mail: ag-pr@agpr.com Tens of Thousands of International Visitors Will Visit Showcase for New Ag Technology: Agritech Spring '96 -- May 12-16, 1996 Tel Aviv, ISRAEL http://shani.net/agritech/ Thousands of agricultural producers and agribusiness representatives will visit the May 12- 16, Agritech Spring '96 showcase of new Israeli ag technology in Tel Aviv, Israel. Staying in tune with the latest product and service developments that may influence today's agribusiness is a challenge. Sometimes it takes looking outside the typical marketing channels to come up with a new idea for a product or service that will help move a company to the next level of profitability. The Government of Israel Economic Mission in North America invites agriculturalists to visit Agritech Spring '96 and take a look at new technology that isn't yet available in the U.S. marketplace. May 12-16 is Agritech Spring '96 in Tel Aviv, Israel. This is the showcase for Israel's world- renowned agricultural technology and integrated solutions. It is the 13th tri-annual event for Israel's dynamic and inventive agronomists and manufacturers to exhibit what they do best -- generate new ideas in modern and super-intensive agriculture, the latest technology, and complete system-solutions for today's intensive agribusiness climate. Total Solutions For Agribusiness. Representatives of Israel's world-leading agro-technology companies will be on hand to discuss all aspects of business-oriented agriculture. Agritech Spring '96 is the venue for developing complete turnkey projects and joint ventures, including consultancy, technology, implementation and marketing. Latest In Agricultural Technology. Agritech Spring '96 features the very latest Israeli technology for field and fruit crops, poultry and dairy farming, greenhouse cultivation, aquaculture, and many other sectors of modern agriculture. Congresses & Workshops. Agritech Spring '96 is also the venue for congresses and workshops on water and irrigation, greenhouse technology, agroecology, agbiotech, plant protection, and dairy farming. See the attached conference schedule. Visitors from the U.S.A. will receive a warm welcome at the Foreign Visitor's Center, and are cordially invited to take advantage of foreign visitor services at Agritech Spring '96. Professional tours and meetings with manufacturers of your choosing may be arranged. There is also an exciting entertainment and hospitality program planned for foreign visitors. Travel to Israel and special interest excursions may be obtained from Israel's El Al airlines for very attractive rates. Call 1-800-223-6700. A special travel package to Agritech'96 has also been arranged by America-Israel-Africa tours. For details contact Eliana Moses at 1-800-884-5144. Specific questions regarding Agritech Spring '96 may be directed to Beth Belkin, Communications Manager, Government of Israel Economic Mission, 800 Second Ave., NY, NY 10017, tel. (212) 499-5628, fax. (212) 499-5615, or e-mail: ag-pr@agpr.com. -end- Agritech Spring '96 Exhibition and Conferences Israel's 13th International Agricultural Exhibition, organized by the Ministry of Agriculture, the Israel Export Institute and the Kibbutz Industries Association, is the showcase for Israel's dynamic and inventive agronomists and manufacturers to exhibit what they do best new ideas in modern and super-intensive agriculture, the latest technology, and complete programs for today's agri-business person. REGISTRATION Saturday; May 11th, 1996 between the hours 7PM-10PM at official hotels. Sunday; May 12th, 1996 between the hours 8:30AM-11AM at official hotels; May 12-16, 1996 each day between the hours 9AM-9PM at the Tel Aviv Convention Center. VISITING HOURS * Sunday; May 12th, 1996 1PM-9PM Overseas visitors only * May 13-15, 1996 o 10AM-4PM Overseas visitors only o 4PM-9PM Overseas visitors & General Public * May 16th, 1996 10AM-7PM Overseas visitors & General Public OFFICIAL OPENING CEREMONY Monday; May 13th, 1996 at 8 PM at the Amphitheater in the Tel Aviv Convention Center. Agritech '96 Exhibition - Entrance and Shuttle Bus Service Free of charge for Overseas visitors only. CONFERENCES THE 7th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WATER & IRRIGATION May 13-16, 1996 * Irrigation Technology * Irrigation and Fertilization in Greenhouses * Irrigation in Arid Conditions * Irrigation and the environment * Management of Water Resources * Irrigation Control * Water Use in the Urban Sector Price: US$340 -------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDITERRANEAN NETWORK OF POLYMER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY - INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POLYMERIC MATERIALS May 12-16, 1996 * Plastics in Agriculture: in Greenhouse Coverings, in Produce Packaging, Polymers for Controlled Release of Fertilizers & Pesticides, Plastic Films for Pest Control, Irrigation Technology * Water Treatment Prices: Until April 1, 1996 - US$300$ (75$ for each accompanying person), >From April 2, 1996 -US$350 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2ND AGRO-ECOLOGY SYMPOSIUM INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: FROM THE DRAWING BOARD TO THE MARKET May 15-16 1996 The symposium will review professional and marketing aspects. * Principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) * The Texas IPM Program * IPM in Evergreen Orchards in Israel * IPM in Deciduous Fruit Orchards * Area wide IPM Programs in Israel * The Role of Commercial Biological Control in IPM * IPM Labeling & Marketing. Price: US$300 -------------------------------------------------------------------- BANANA FROM TEST-TUBE TO THE FIELD: On the issue of Growing Tissue Culture Bananas in Tropical and Areas May 14, 1995 * Genetic Engineering in Bananas * Somaclonal Propagation in Bananas * Meristemtic Propagation * Fertilization *Irrigation * Pest-Control & Nutrition Price: Free of charge -------------------------------------------------------------------- ISRAEL'S DAIRY INDUSTRY AS A MODEL FOR IMITATION IN WARM CLIMATE COUNTRIES May 14th, 1996 * Feeding of High Yielding Dairy Cows in Hot Climates * Trends in Breeding * of the Israel Holstein Cow * Israeli Technical Developments Enhancing the Dairy Farm Price: US$40 -------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON GREENHOUSE & ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR MILD CLIMATES May 14, 1996 At the Agricultural Research Organization - Volcani Center * Ventilation * Insect Proofing * Heating Technologies * Innovations in Cover Materials * Plant Protection * Artificial Soils & Nutrients Price: US$150 (US$120 for accompanying person) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Professional Israeli Agriculture Field Trips Thursday May 16th, 1996 * Water & Irrigation * Environment & Agro-Ecology * Agricultural Research Institutions * Business Initiative in the Farming Sector, Complimenting Agricultural Activities * Kibbutz & Moshav in Israel * Dairy Farm * Greenhouses For further information, contact: Beth Belkin, Communications Manager, Government of Israel Economic Mission, 800 Second Ave., NY, NY 10017, tel. (212) 499-5628, fax. (212) 499-5615, or e-mail. ag-pr@agpr.com. -end- <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:16:32 -0600 From: "J.D. Oster" .<.oster@mail.ucr.edu.>. Subject: Re: Organic Matter Discussion Bernard: Organic matter is a stablizing agent for soil aggregates. Since dispersion of soil aggregates at the soil surface can greatly decrease infiltration rates, water infiltration is increased as the organic matter in the soil increases. Organic matter may be less effective on sandy soils than on finer textured soils because its effectiveness will be enhanced by the greater surface area of soil particles in the finer soil. Malcolm Oades at the Waite Institute in Adelaide has research experience related to the roles of organic matter on soil physical and chemical properties. Published review articles include Boyle et al., 1989. The influence of organic matter on soil aggregation and water infiltration. J. Prod. Agr. 2:290-299 and Martens and Frankenberger, Jr. 1992. Effects of organic amendments on water infiltration and soil properties of an irrigated soil. Agron. J. 84:707-717. Jim Oster At 12:00 AM 3/17/96 -0600, you wrote: >I would like to catch up on the current discussion concerning the effect >of Organic Matter on permeability, but have only witnessed postings since >the DON WAUCHOPE .<.DON@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu.>. posting on Mon, 11 Mar >1996 11:06:23 -0600. I hope the following queries do not digress too far. > >Does it always follow that increased Organic Matter results in increased >"plant available water", or is this just the indirect effect of the added >OM reducing the bulk density? If this is so, would the effect be the same >for a sandy soil as a heavier textured soil? > >I am trying to establish what the variables under discussion might be. >The statement by R.L. Wershaw In Environ. Sci.and Technol.- "... The water >permeability of two soils of indentical mineralogical composition and >grain size distribution generally will be higher in the soil of higher >humus content..." vol. 27, pp 814-816 (1993), appears to suggest some >other mechanisms other than the physical properties of the soils. > >Is it the direct presence of OM that increases permeability, or the >indirect effect on soil physical properties? Are there other mechanisms >at work, considering the organic matter fraction should have higher water >absorption than the mineral fraction? > >Regards > >Bernard Peasley > >s_bjp@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU > > J.D.(Jim) Oster Dept. of Soil & Env. Sciences University of California Riverside, CA 92521 Phone (909)787-5100 FAX (909)787-5522 <------------------------------>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:44:33 -0600 From: Maribeth Milner .<.milner@townsqr.com.>. Subject: parent material I have a question about the origins of parent material in south central Missouri. My training was in Wisconsin, a glaciated area. I have seen soils developed in limestone residuum, but what I found wasn't at all similar. The area is classic karst topography in the Ozarks. The limestone/dolomite is overlain by "residuum" and capped with loess. Outcropping of igneous rock is well to the north and northeast. Iron has been mined near here in "paleo-sinks". I didn't have a Munsell color book or water so the descriptions are quite subjective. There's an area about 40 feet wide that is dominated by reddish colors. The matrix is clayey and reminds me of an unconsolidated gneiss. (N.B. I've never seen gneissic residuum!) Very sharp boundaries occur between layers of white, purple, yellow, brown and red. If this is the same material I've heard the soil mappers discuss, the white is quartz clay and the purple is hematite. These layers are not uniform. Whites and reds dominate one area with coarse banding. Another area might be dominated by yellow and browns with fine banding. None of it reminds me of cross-bedding. Layers are not parallel, either. Now the kicker - the matrix contains large, randomly distributed, mostly angular rocks (predominantly quartzite). The surrounding area didn't have rocks. There's much more that I haven't described. For example, I found a "ball" (~1.5' diameter) of quartzite rocks loosely cemented together (clay?). I also saw small (2' square) red areas outside of the main complex area. So, how does one get randomly distributed rocks in such a complex matrix? The glaciers stopped north of the Missouri river several hundred miles from here (this site is within 20 miles of Arkansas!) Perhaps the higher elevations in the Ozarks was conducive to local glacial formation? Could the unconsolidated material have been subjected to hydrothermal action? Any thoughts? My project was canceled recently, so I have time to pursue my curiosity while looking for work and finishing projects. However, now that it has started to rain, it may be a while before I can get back into the cut. Soil mapping has just started in the area. I'm not the only one wondering what's going on! Maribeth Milner milner@townsqr.com <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Wed Mar 20 01:12 EST 1996
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 00:01:51 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603200601.AA28080@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 491

Contents:
Re: parent material (George Fisher .<.gfisher@jhu.edu.>.)
BD-organic pairs  (Carpenter-Boggs .<.lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu.>.)
Introduction (Carpenter-Boggs .<.lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu.>.)
Re: parent material (Maribeth Milner .<.milner@townsqr.com.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:27:41 -0400 (EDT) From: George Fisher .<.gfisher@jhu.edu.>. Subject: Re: parent material Maribeth, I should start by noting that I'm a geologist interested in soils, not a soil scientist. Your description sounds to me very much like the geology of fault breccias that are common in limestone terrain in the Shenadoah Valley, just west of the Blue Ridge in Maryland and Virginia. There, Cambrian and Ordovician limestone is cut by fault zones along which blocks of quartzite, basement gneiss, basalt (all older than the limestone) are common, in what appears to be random orientations, some embedded in a clayey gouge (very finely crushed rock probably originally slate or shale, probably altered in part by hydrothermal solutions percolating along the fault zone). In places, those solutions have also deposited black manganiferous iron ores, some of which were mined for iron in colonial times. I've seen this material only in outcrop, never in the weathering zone, but I would imagine that if weathered it would look much like the soil you describe. In order to consider this explanation seriously, there should be at least some evidence of faulting and/or breccia formation along these lines somewhere _outside_ of the weathering zone. Hope this helps. George Fisher At 06:06 PM 3/18/96 -0600, you wrote: > I have a question about the origins of parent material in south central >Missouri. My training was in Wisconsin, a glaciated area. I have seen >soils developed in limestone residuum, but what I found wasn't at all similar. > > The area is classic karst topography in the Ozarks. The >limestone/dolomite is overlain by "residuum" and capped with loess. >Outcropping of igneous rock is well to the north and northeast. Iron has >been mined near here in "paleo-sinks". I didn't have a Munsell color book >or water so the descriptions are quite subjective. > > There's an area about 40 feet wide that is dominated by reddish colors. >The matrix is clayey and reminds me of an unconsolidated gneiss. (N.B. I've >never seen gneissic residuum!) Very sharp boundaries occur between layers >of white, purple, yellow, brown and red. If this is the same material I've >heard the soil mappers discuss, the white is quartz clay and the purple is >hematite. These layers are not uniform. Whites and reds dominate one area >with coarse banding. Another area might be dominated by yellow and browns >with fine banding. None of it reminds me of cross-bedding. Layers are not >parallel, either. > > Now the kicker - the matrix contains large, randomly distributed, mostly >angular rocks (predominantly quartzite). The surrounding area didn't have >rocks. > > There's much more that I haven't described. For example, I found a >"ball" (~1.5' diameter) of quartzite rocks loosely cemented together >(clay?). I also saw small (2' square) red areas outside of the main complex >area. > > So, how does one get randomly distributed rocks in such a complex matrix? >The glaciers stopped north of the Missouri river several hundred miles from >here (this site is within 20 miles of Arkansas!) Perhaps the higher >elevations in the Ozarks was conducive to local glacial formation? Could >the unconsolidated material have been subjected to hydrothermal action? Any >thoughts? > > My project was canceled recently, so I have time to pursue my curiosity >while looking for work and finishing projects. However, now that it has >started to rain, it may be a while before I can get back into the cut. Soil >mapping has just started in the area. I'm not the only one wondering what's >going on! > >Maribeth Milner >milner@townsqr.com > > ******************************************* George W. Fisher, Professor of Geology Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences Johns Hopkins University Baltimore MD 21218 Phone: 410-516-7237 FAX: 410-516-7933 ******************************************* <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:54:36 -0800 (PST) From: Carpenter-Boggs .<.lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu.>. Subject: BD-organic pairs Dear readers: We are hoping that you can help us in a search. We are researchers at Washington State University, doing several types of studies concerning the biodynamic (BD) preparations, and we have run into a jam. It is very difficult in the academic world to investigate something as complex as a farming system over more than one or two growing seasons. Thus, the long-term effects of potentially beneficial methods often go unresearched and unseen. This is where you can help. We would like to do side-by-side comparisons of established biodynamic and organic fields, but have had trouble locating suitable field pairs. To be appropriate for our study, neighboring fields must have been under their respective management system, either biodynamic or organic, for at least 5 years. The native soil, landscape position, and cropping history must be very similar. If you know of a field pair that might fit our needs, PLEASE contact us. We will need to ask the farmers some questions, get background information, etc., and if we do come out to sample soil in the fields, we promise to keep the number of holes to a minimum. Thanks very much. -John P. Reganold and Lynne Carpenter-Boggs YOUR CHOICE OF COMMUNICATION MEDIA: address:201 Johnson Hall, WSU Pullman, WA 99164-6420 phone: 509-335-8856 (John) 509-335-7817 (Lynne) FAX: 509-335-8674 (attn: Reganold) email: reganold@wsunix.wsu.edu (John) lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu (Lynne) <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:27:42 -0800 (PST) From: Carpenter-Boggs .<.lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu.>. Subject: Introduction Hello, it's nice to join your group. This is simply a note of introduction. My name is Lynne Carpenter-Boggs. I am currently a PhD candidate at Washington State University, working with John Reganold and Ann Kennedy. My research topic involves determining whether biodynamic preparations have any effect on compost development, crop yield and quality, or soil quality. I would be happy to receive mail from anyone experienced in - or just open-minded about - biodynamics. <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:35:00 -0600 From: Maribeth Milner .<.milner@townsqr.com.>. Subject: Re: parent material George, Thanks for your reply. So, I would need to dig down to bedrock and look for evidence of faulting! Actually, your thoughts sound more feasible to me than glacial till impregnated by hydrothermal deposits - but it was the only thing I could think of. The fualting that I've seen in Wisconsin limestone never brought PreCambrian rocks to the surface. So, it didn't even occur to me. I am curious, though. What would happen to unconsolidated material when it is hit by hydrothermal "juices"? I assume that there are different types of hydrothermal processes - those responsible for geysers and those responsible for lead-zinc deposits. I'm wondering about the latter's impact on unconsolidated materials. Thanks again, Maribeth > In order to consider this explanation seriously, there should be at >least some evidence of faulting and/or breccia formation along these lines >somewhere _outside_ of the weathering zone. <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Thu Mar 21 01:15 EST 1996
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:02:44 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603210602.AA00951@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 492

Contents:
molecular biology (Paul Nelson .<.pnelson@waite.adelaide.edu.au.>.)
Proc of Soils and Tree Workshop available (Scott Xiaochuan Chang .<.xichang@unixg.ubc.ca.>.)
Re: parent material (George Fisher .<.gfisher@jhu.edu.>.)
 molecular biology -Reply (MICHAEL BRODER .<.BRODER.MICHAEL@epamail.epa.gov.>.)
     Re: define biodynamics? (AGRO280@UNLVM.UNL.EDU)
 (Soilage@aol.com)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 17:07:44 +1030 (CDT) From: Paul Nelson .<.pnelson@waite.adelaide.edu.au.>. Subject: molecular biology I am wondering if anybody knows of any mailing lists which deal with the molecular biology of soil microorganisms, be that degraders of xenobiotics, pathogenic organisms, mycorrhizae etc. Thanks, Paul ______________________________________ Mr. Paul Nelson Dept. of Soil Science, Waite Institute Glen Osmond S.A. 5064, Australia Tel. 61-8-3037284, Fax. 61-8-3036511 <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 23:10:46 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Xiaochuan Chang .<.xichang@unixg.ubc.ca.>. Subject: Proc of Soils and Tree Workshop available Proceedings of the Trees and Soil Workshop. Lincoln University are available from: Dr D. J. Mead Reader in Forestry Field Service Centre B0x 84 Lincoln University New Zealand E-Mail Meadd@lincoln.ac.nz Price $NZ20 or $US14 -------------------- FYI >A workshop was held on trees and soils at Lincoln University in Canterbury >(NZ) in 1994, and the proceedings are now available: > >Mead, D.J., and I.S. Cornforth. 1995. Proceedings of the Trees and Soil >Workshop, Lincoln University. Agronomy Society of New Zealand Special >Publication #10, Lincoln Univ. Press, Canterbury. (obtainable from: >Agronomy Society of New Zealand, Private Bag 4704, Christchurch, NZ). > >Partial list of contents: > >The influence of tree species on forest soils: processes and patterns (D. >Binkley) > >Soil properties and processes under different vegetation types in New >Zealand (J. Adams) > >Gisburn revisted: lessons from a long-term trial of effects of >afforestation (HAI Madgwick) > >An efficient design for studies of plant species interactions: an example >with white spruce and alder (T. Wurtz) > >The influence of tree species on nitrogen mineralisation in the forest >floor: lessons from three retrospective studies (C. Prescott, KD Thomas, >and GF Weetman). >Dan Binkley >Professor, Department of Forest Sciences and >Director, Graduate Degree Program in Ecology >Colorado State University >Ft. Collins, CO 80523 USA > >Phone 970 491 6519 >Fax 970 491 2796 > > <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:42:16 -0400 (EDT) From: George Fisher .<.gfisher@jhu.edu.>. Subject: Re: parent material Maribeth, Glad you found my idea interesting; a couple of further comments... At 03:22 PM 3/19/96 -0600, you wrote: >George, > > Thanks for your reply. So, I would need to dig down to bedrock and look >for evidence of faulting! No, you don't really need to dig -- if faulting of the sort I had in mind has created the parent material of your soil, you should be able to find some mention of it in the local geologic literature. Try quadrangle-scale geologic maps, reports on local geology, even accounts of early prospecting for iron deposits. >Actually, your thoughts sound more feasible to me >than glacial till impregnated by hydrothermal deposits - but it was the only >thing I could think of. The fualting that I've seen in Wisconsin limestone >never brought PreCambrian rocks to the surface. So, it didn't even occur to me. > > I am curious, though. What would happen to unconsolidated material when >it is hit by hydrothermal "juices"? I assume that there are different types >of hydrothermal processes - those responsible for geysers and those >responsible for lead-zinc deposits. I'm wondering about the latter's impact >on unconsolidated materials. > That's very hard to predict -- it all depends upon the pressure and temperature of the water, the rocks being altered, the local gradient in fluid properties, the composition of the rocks and the fluid, the quantity of fluid, and the kinetics of the reactions going on. It can vary from total replacement of the low-temperature mineral assemblage to simmple precipitation of iron-oxide phases. Sometimes you find open pockets partially filled with well-formed crystals, but more often you don't. But in any case, it's very rare for fluids to emerge hot at the surface (except in the case of geysers, where there are very hot rocks close to the surface). More commonly the alteration takes place at depths on the order of a kilometer or more, well before the rocks in question enter the weathering zone. So any unconsolidated material being altered is likely to be the fault gouge of which I spoke before, and that material is being created (by granulation of surrounding rocks) at the same time the hydrothermal alteration is taking place, so the gouge minerals may actually be in equilibrium with the percolating fluids. Again, hope this helps. George ******************************************* George W. Fisher, Professor of Geology Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences Johns Hopkins University Baltimore MD 21218 Phone: 410-516-7237 FAX: 410-516-7933 ******************************************* <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 12:36:39 -0500 From: MICHAEL BRODER .<.BRODER.MICHAEL@epamail.epa.gov.>. Subject: molecular biology -Reply In response to paul nelson, i don't see why we can't initiate a dialogue on microbial ecology/agricultural biotechnology on this list. >>> Paul Nelson .<.pnelson@waite.adelaide.edu.au.>. 03/20/96 01:29am >>> I am wondering if anybody knows of any mailing lists which deal with the molecular biology of soil microorganisms, be that degraders of xenobiotics, pathogenic organisms, mycorrhizae etc. Thanks, Paul ______________________________________ Mr. Paul Nelson Dept. of Soil Science, Waite Institute Glen Osmond S.A. 5064, Australia Tel. 61-8-3037284, Fax. 61-8-3036511 <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 15:22:57 CST From: AGRO280@UNLVM.UNL.EDU Subject: Re: define biodynamics? Please define what you mean by a biodynamic field? I did some research a while back on/with 2 farms/ers. They were side-by-side farms with same soil type, one "organic", one "conventionally farmed." I ran a few simple tests on soil characteristics (i.e. available nitrogen, P, K, hydraulic conductivity, etc.). One was a dairy farm that also grew their own feed, the other had no livestock. They were located in SE Colorado (around Pueblo). If you are interested, I can send you more information. <------------------------------>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:46:29 -0500 From: Soilage@aol.com Subject: cently wrote re: parent material in limestone terrain A few years ago I worked on a project with similar geological characteristics. It involved remedial foundation design of the new geology building at the University of California at Santa Cruz. The geology building was sited on top of a sink hole that was "found" only after the foundation had been poured. This was the second time in 30 years a new geology building required very expensive remedial foundation design during or shortly after construction (sinkholes both times). As a UCSC geology graduate I had to laugh, as a California taxpayer I had to cry. In any case the remedial investigation offered exposures and detailed drilling information in limestone terrain that would normally not be available. The characteristics Maribeth describes in the Ozark exposure are similar to those observed at UCSC. We observed a thick (20 feet +), red (5YR hue), unconsolidated, massive infilling of the sinkhole (interpreted as colluvium) underlain by somewhat banded, brightly colored clays, silts and sands with occasional quartz clasts. Below this we observed pinnicles of marble. The UCSC situation may be somewhat different in that the red colluvium and banded unit are stratigraphically distinct and I am unclear if this was the case in the Ozark example. Our interpretation of the UCSC problem was that the red colluvial unit, derived from deeply weathered gneissic schist (the banded unit underlying the colluvial infill was also interpreted as gneissic schist), infilled the sinkhole as it failed over time. The banded unit was deeply weathered and locally weakly consolidated. We attribute the schist's poor rock quality to two factors: 1) percolation of water into the sinkhole and 2) shearing of bedrock units (gneiss and marble) - this is California, remember, almost everything is sheared. In fact, old bedrock faults probably control the locations of the sinkholes on the UCSC campus. There is no evidence glaciation affected central coastal California; therefore that is an implausible explanation for the observed relationships. The UCSC example may explain some of the Maribeth's observations, although I know very little about the geology of the Ozarks. The Ozarks must have undergone some orogenesis. Therefore, hydrothermal alteration, as she proposes, and/or metamorphosis may explain the brightly colored bands and quartz clasts she observed (although it obviously requires deposits that could be metamorphosed - she also describes limestone bedrock, not marble - determination of the character of the "calcareous" bedrock might confirm or deny if the UCSC example is appropriate in this setting). If there is no evidence of glaciation in the region that appears to be an unlikely explanation for her observations. One discordant piece of evidence is that Maribeth indicates that "igneous rocks are located well to the north" of the site. No precise distances are mentioned. I know that in the UCSC example outcrops of gneiss (metamorphic rock used as proxy for "igneous") are rare, however. Furthermore, we had excellent exposures in cuts to make our interpretation and it is unclear how much exposure Maribeth had to work with. Hope I haven't been too geological for this group. Patrick Vaughan Certified Engineering Geologist e-mail: soilage@aol.com <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Fri Mar 22 01:13 EST 1996
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:03:28 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603220603.AA07270@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 493

Contents:
Needs data ("Ted Zobeck" .<.tzobeck@mail.csrl.ars.usda.gov.>.)
Re: Needs data (Nilantha Hulugalle .<.nilantha@mv.pi.csiro.au.>.)
Re: Needs data (Byron Bodo .<.bodo@io.org.>.)
 ("Fox, Vanessa" .<.FOXV@wpo.gns.cri.nz.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: 21 Mar 1996 16:20:46 -0600 From: "Ted Zobeck" .<.tzobeck@mail.csrl.ars.usda.gov.>. Subject: Needs data I received this request from the Geomorphlist and thought perhaps someone on this list might help. Ted Zobeck *************************************************** contact Jim (ftjpm@aurora.alaska.edu) if you can help... Dear Geomorphlisters, I am performing rainfall-runoff experiments in an arctic drainage basin and would like to compare my results to temperate and tropical basins. Specifically, I'd like to compare runoff/precip ratios between permafrost and non-permafrost basins. Does anybody know of any references or data sources with runoff/precip ratios? Thanks, Jim McNamara <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:59:04 +0000 From: Nilantha Hulugalle .<.nilantha@mv.pi.csiro.au.>. Subject: Re: Needs data >I received this request from the Geomorphlist and thought perhaps someone on >this list might help. >Ted Zobeck >*************************************************** >contact Jim (ftjpm@aurora.alaska.edu) if you can help... > > >Dear Geomorphlisters, > >I am performing rainfall-runoff experiments in an arctic drainage basin >and would like to compare my results to temperate and tropical basins. >Specifically, I'd like to compare runoff/precip ratios between permafrost >and non-permafrost basins. Does anybody know of any references or data >sources with runoff/precip ratios? >Thanks, > >Jim McNamara With respect to tropical environments I suggest you contact: Professor Rattan Lal at Ohio State University, Colombus, Ohio. Email: rlal@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Nilantha Hulugalle, Australian Cotton Research Institute, Narrabri, NSW, Australia <------------------------------>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 21:12:58 -0500 From: Byron Bodo .<.bodo@io.org.>. Subject: Re: Needs data At 04:13 PM 3/21/96 -0600, you wrote: >I received this request from the Geomorphlist and thought perhaps someone on >this list might help. >Ted Zobeck >*************************************************** >contact Jim (ftjpm@aurora.alaska.edu) if you can help... > > >Dear Geomorphlisters, > >I am performing rainfall-runoff experiments in an arctic drainage basin >and would like to compare my results to temperate and tropical basins. >Specifically, I'd like to compare runoff/precip ratios between permafrost >and non-permafrost basins. Does anybody know of any references or data >sources with runoff/precip ratios? >Thanks, > >Jim McNamara > Have a look at the paperback below. There is a table that gives average runoff coefficients by latitude range & continent. The figures are mainly derived from old UNESCO / IHD studies from about 1964-74, and the grouping doesn't reflect the range of possible coefficients. Much of the humid tropics wasn't covered very well then (and much still isn't). Near the back, there's a table with a reduced list of individual sites for which discharge & precip data are given. McMahon, T.A., Finlayson, B.L., Haines, A.T. and Srikanthan, R. 1992. Global Runoff - Continental Comparisons of Annual Flows and Peak Discharges. Catena-Verlag. Cremlingen, Germany. -bb <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:49:24 +1200 From: "Fox, Vanessa" .<.FOXV@wpo.gns.cri.nz.>. Subject: unsubscribe <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sat Mar 23 01:15 EST 1996
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 00:03:48 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603230603.AA20917@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 494

Contents:
Re: parent material (Soilage@aol.com)
Re: Needs data (KSKgeos@aol.com)
Re: BD-organic pairs (fwd) (Gail Olson .<.gail@arrc.ncsu.edu.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 12:23:45 -0500 From: Soilage@aol.com Subject: Re: parent material Maribeth Milner recently wrote re: parent material in limestone terrain and George Fisher replied with some astute comments. I have a similar example with some possible suggestions to further test the origins of the earth materials. A few years ago I worked on a project with similar geological characteristics. It involved remedial foundation design of the new geology building at the University of California at Santa Cruz. The geology building was sited on top of a sink hole that was "found" only after the foundation had been poured. This was the second time in 30 years a new geology building required very expensive remedial foundation design during or shortly after construction (sinkholes both times). As a UCSC geology graduate I had to laugh, as a California taxpayer I had to cry (the story is actually somewhat funnier/tragic but for liability reasons I cannot go into detail). In any case the remedial investigation offered exposures and detailed drilling information in limestone terrain that would normally not be available. The characteristics Maribeth describes in the Ozark exposure are similar to those observed at UCSC. We observed a thick (20 feet +), red (5YR hue), unconsolidated, massive infilling of the sinkhole (interpreted as colluvium) underlain by somewhat banded, brightly colored clays, silts and sands with occasional quartz clasts. Below this we observed pinnicles of marble. The UCSC situation may be somewhat different in that the red colluvium and banded unit are stratigraphically distinct and I am unclear if this was the case in the Ozark example. Our interpretation of the UCSC problem was that the red colluvial unit, derived from deeply weathered gneissic schist (the banded unit underlying the colluvial infill was also interpreted as gneissic schist), infilled the sinkhole as it failed over time. The banded unit was deeply weathered and locally weakly consolidated. We attribute the schist's poor rock quality to two factors: 1) percolation of water into the sinkhole and 2) shearing of bedrock units (gneiss and marble) - this is California, remember, almost everything is sheared. In fact, old bedrock faults probably control the locations of the sinkholes on the UCSC campus. There is no evidence glaciation affected central coastal California; therefore that is an implausible explanation for the observed relationships. The UCSC example may explain some of the Maribeth's observations, although I know very little about the geology of the Ozarks. The Ozarks must have undergone some orogenesis. Therefore, hydrothermal alteration, as she proposes, and/or metamorphosis may explain the brightly colored bands and quartz clasts she observed (although it obviously requires deposits that could be metamorphosed - she also describes limestone bedrock, not marble - determination of the character of the "calcareous" bedrock might confirm or deny if the UCSC example is appropriate in this setting). If there is no evidence of glaciation in the region that appears to be an unlikely explanation for her observations. One discordant piece of evidence is that Maribeth indicates that "igneous rocks are located well to the north" of the site. No precise distances are mentioned. I know that in the UCSC example outcrops of gneiss (metamorphic rock used as proxy for "igneous") are rare, however. Furthermore, we had excellent exposures in cuts to make our interpretation and it is unclear how much exposure Maribeth had to work with. Hope I haven't been too geological for this group. Patrick Vaughan Certified Engineering Geologist e-mail: soilage@aol.com <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 12:43:57 -0500 From: KSKgeos@aol.com Subject: Re: Needs data Hello Geomorphers! In response to the request for comparitive basin runoff analysis between arctic, temperate, and tropical climates, you might try contacting the USArmy Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research Lab (CRREL) in Hanover New Hampshire. I know for a fact that they do just this type of research work in temperate and arctic environments. I'm not sure who the appropriate contact at their facility would be, however you could try either Larry Gatto at: lgatto@hanover-crrel.army.mil, or Chuck Ryerson at: cryerson@crrel41.crrel.usace.army.mil. Both of these contacts are acquaintances of mine and may be able to point you in the right direction. Good luck, Kent S. Koptiuch, CGWP #449 Principal Geologist KSKGeoS, Inc. 164 Osgood Hill Essex, Vermont 05452 KSKGeoS@aol.com <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 15:31:34 -0500 (EST) From: Gail Olson .<.gail@arrc.ncsu.edu.>. Subject: Re: BD-organic pairs (fwd) On Fri, 22 Mar 1996, Betty Mcquaid wrote: > I know of some organic sites in the Piemont physiographic region of North > Carolina. In fact, I used these sites to field test a soil quality feild kit > and also to run similar in lab measurements of soil quality. > > Betty McQuaid > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:46:36 -0600 > > From: Carpenter-Boggs .<.lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu.>. > > To: Multiple recipients of list .<.soils-l@unl.edu.>. > > Subject: BD-organic pairs > > > > > > Dear readers: > > We are hoping that you can help us in a search. We > > are researchers at Washington State University, doing several types > > of studies concerning the biodynamic (BD) preparations, and we have > > run into a jam. > > It is very difficult in the academic world to investigate > > something as complex as a farming system over more than one or two > > growing seasons. Thus, the long-term effects of potentially > > beneficial methods often go unresearched and unseen. This is where > > you can help. We would like to do side-by-side comparisons of > > established biodynamic and organic fields, but have had trouble > > locating suitable field pairs. To be appropriate for our study, > > neighboring fields must have been under their respective management > > system, either biodynamic or organic, for at least 5 years. The > > native soil, landscape position, and cropping history must be > > very similar. > > If you know of a field pair that might fit our needs, > > PLEASE contact us. We will need to ask the farmers some questions, > > get background information, etc., and if we do come out to sample > > soil in the fields, we promise to keep the number of holes to a > > minimum. > > Thanks very much. > > > > -John P. Reganold and Lynne Carpenter-Boggs > > > > YOUR CHOICE OF COMMUNICATION MEDIA: > > > > address:201 Johnson Hall, WSU > > Pullman, WA 99164-6420 > > > > phone: 509-335-8856 (John) 509-335-7817 (Lynne) > > > > FAX: 509-335-8674 (attn: Reganold) > > > > email: reganold@wsunix.wsu.edu (John) > > lcboggs@mail.wsu.edu (Lynne) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sun Mar 24 01:17 EST 1996
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 00:04:46 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603240604.AA14331@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 495

Contents:
unsubscribe (ingvar.nilsson@mv.slu.se (ingvar nilsson))
Re: unsubscribe (bubbahyd@interserv.com)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 14:55:10 +0100 From: ingvar.nilsson@mv.slu.se (ingvar nilsson) Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe soils-l Ingvar Nilsson <------------------------------>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 14:25:00 -0800 From: bubbahyd@interserv.com Subject: Re: unsubscribe unsubscribe <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Mon Mar 25 03:58 EST 1996
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 02:47:03 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603250847.AA29465@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 496

Contents:
unsubscribe (magnus.simonsson@mv.slu.se (Magnus Simonsson))

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 09:32:47 +0100 From: magnus.simonsson@mv.slu.se (Magnus Simonsson) Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe soils-l Magnus Simonsson ____________________________________________________ Magnus Simonsson Avd f=F6r markl=E4ra Box 7014 750 07 UPSALA Telefon: 018 - 67 25 93; telefax: 018 - 67 27 95 Datorpost: magnus.simonsson@mv.slu.se ____________________________________________________ <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Tue Mar 26 04:06 EST 1996
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 02:47:35 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603260847.AA25396@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 497

Contents:
Re: parent material (Jscott6615@aol.com)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 15:15:14 -0500 From: Jscott6615@aol.com Subject: Re: parent material I am a mapper in south Missouri and trained in Wisconsin. Yes this type of stuff puzzles me also. I have only worked in the Mississipian and Ordovician aged materals in Missouri (Wisconsin aged till and driftless areas in Illinois). My thoughts are that there are more areas of colluvium than what one could consiter strictly as residiuum. I believe most of the material that is called residiuum has been transported at one time. The glacial periods offer the mode (water) for that transportation. I believe most of this water came from snow field melts that had to be present through out the midwest as the glaciers retreated. I also feel that there were small alpine type glaciers in the Ozarks. Their effects were very localized. I have no soild proff these are just hunches that come from working and living in glacial areas and then working in the Ozarks. <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Wed Mar 27 04:02 EST 1996
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 02:48:04 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603270848.AA28944@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 498

Contents:
     unsubscribe (Lemon .<.MS-MONAN@VM.MSSC.EDU.>.)
unsubscribe (aheintz@Soils.Umn.EDU (Gigi))
Soil biology slide set?? (bwilson@waite.adelaide.edu.au)
Re: Soil biology slide set?? ("RICHARD MACEWAN" .<.rjm@fs3.ballarat.edu.au.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 16:42:51 CST From: Lemon .<.MS-MONAN@VM.MSSC.EDU.>. Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe <------------------------------>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:24:31 -0600 (CST) From: aheintz@Soils.Umn.EDU (Gigi) Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:26:20 -1400 From: bwilson@waite.adelaide.edu.au Subject: Soil biology slide set?? Hi all, does any body know of the SSSA-3 soil biology and biochemistry slide set. I'm looking for a contact address and if anyone knows the price it would be much appreciated. ta ben ************************************************************ Benjamin Wilson Dept of Soil Science University of Adelaide PMB1 Glen Osmond South Australia 5064 Australia ph +61 8 3036518 fax +61 8 3036511 <------------------------------>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:23:04 GMT+1000 From: "RICHARD MACEWAN" .<.rjm@fs3.ballarat.edu.au.>. Subject: Re: Soil biology slide set?? Dear Ben, The soil microbiology and biochemistry slide set is available from : ASA,CSSA,SSSA Headquarters Book order department 677 South Segoe Road Madison WI 53711 USA It comprises 143 slides and cost $45 (US) in 1994 cheers, Richard ****************************** Richard MacEwan, School of Science University of Ballarat, PO Box 663, BALLARAT 3353 AUS Phone: 053 279221 Fax: 053 279240 "If you're smart or rich or lucky, you may beat the laws of man. But the inner laws of spirit and the outer laws of nature no man can." (Joni Mitchell - The Wolf that Lives in Lindsay) ########## <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Thu Mar 28 05:23 EST 1996
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 04:09:51 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603281009.AA29112@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 499

Contents:
Composting (Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 09:32:00 -0800 (PST) From: Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>. Subject: Composting Bearing in mind how big composting is becoming in USA [& UK?], does anyone know of any lists, newsgroups, web sites etc., that discuss such matters ? Cheers, Guy <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Fri Mar 29 05:36 EST 1996
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 04:09:58 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603291009.AA00730@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 500

Contents:
Re: Composting (Graeme D Buchan .<.BUCHAN@tui.lincoln.ac.nz.>.)
Re: Composting (jsloan@Soils.Umn.EDU (John Sloan))
5 th French National Congress of Soil Science. (Christian WALTER .<.cwalter@roazhon.inra.fr.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:22:53 +1200 From: Graeme D Buchan .<.BUCHAN@tui.lincoln.ac.nz.>. Subject: Re: Composting From: Graeme Buchan, Soil Science Dept, Lincoln Univ., NZ I do not know of any Internet groups or sites devoted to composting, but agree that there should be one ! Composting is also on the ascendancy here in New Zealand. It may be worth enquiring with the editors/publishers of the `Biocycle' magazine. Graeme ******************************** > From: Guy Yeates .<.YEATES@cabi.msm.cgnet.com.>. > Subject: Composting > > Bearing in mind how big composting is becoming in USA [& UK?], does anyone > know of any lists, newsgroups, web sites etc., that discuss such matters ? > > Cheers, > Guy <------------------------------>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:06:15 -0600 (CST) From: jsloan@Soils.Umn.EDU (John Sloan) Subject: Re: Composting > >Bearing in mind how big composting is becoming in USA [& UK?], does anyone >know of any lists, newsgroups, web sites etc., that discuss such matters ? > >Cheers, > >Guy > > You can subscribe to the COMPOST discussion group by sending the following message, SUBSCRIBE COMPOST your name to listproc@listproc.wsu.edu ==================================================================== John Sloan Tel: (612) 625-4749 USDA-ARS Fax: (612) 625-2208 Department of Soil, Water, and Climate e-mail: jsloan@soils.umn.edu 439 Borlaug Hall, Univ. of Minnesota sloanjj@aol.com 1991 Upper Buford Circle St. Paul MN 55108 <------------------------------>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:34:44 +0000 From: Christian WALTER .<.cwalter@roazhon.inra.fr.>. Subject: 5 th French National Congress of Soil Science. As indicated in a previous message to soil-l, the 5 th Congress of the French Association of Soil Science (AFES) will be held at Rennes (Brittany, France) from 22 to 25 of April 1996.=20 You will find a detailled program (sorry, in French) of this congress on the following W3 site : http://segolene.roazhon.inra.fr/afes/afes.html Authors and title of the communication are indicated. More than 100 scientific communications will be made during three days= mainly on the following subjects : 1. Soil and agronomy (14 communications); 2. Spatial analysis and soil survey (19) 3. Behaviour of the pesticides in the soil (12) 4. Organic Matter of the soil - Erosion and runoff (9) 5. Metals and trace elements in the soil (20) 6. Pedogenesis and alteration - Geochimical approaches.(11) 7. Soil physic and transfer in the landscape (11) Other activities will be : - a conference by Dr. Jamagne, head of the INRA Laboratoty of Orleans on "the diversity of soils in france" - a debate on "soil and transfer of pollutants in the landscape" More information on the web site. Best regards . Dr C. WALTER Dr C . CHEVERRY Organizing commitee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian .WALTER ENSA-INRA, Laboratoire de Science du Sol, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc 35042 Rennes -=20 t=E9l : 99-28-54-39 ou 99-28-54-22 (standard) Fax : 99-28-54-30 E-mail : cwalter@roazhon.inra.fr <----------------------------------------------------------------------->
<----------------------------------------------------------------------->
<------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sat Mar 30 05:20 EST 1996
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 04:10:15 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603301010.AA29279@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 501

Contents:
Another introduction and suction cup discussion (hperry@forestry.umn.edu (C. Hobart Perry))
     unsubscribe (Lemon .<.MS-MONAN@VM.MSSC.EDU.>.)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:30:07 -0600 From: hperry@forestry.umn.edu (C. Hobart Perry) Subject: Another introduction and suction cup discussion Goodmorning all, I'm another Ph.D. student looking at chemical leaching in soils. I am most interested in a short list of pesticides, nitrates, and phosphorus. The project is focusing on the impact of different cover-types on leaching potential (forests vs crops). In our situation, we are using BOTH suction and zero-tension lysimeters to sample macropore and micropore flowpaths. As Dr. Rawlins mentioned, the flux rate is a critical measurement. In our case, we are estimating the leaching volume by difference with a water balance approach. ET (the only other significant output on flat sites) will be estimated with a modified Penman-Montieth equation calibrated for differing soil moisture conditions. Mr. Edis, I would appreciate any information you collected from you original post. Mr. Malone, I would also appreciate a copy of your technical paper. How's the job search going? One final comment: The original discussion mentioned some of the difficulties in obtaining samples from either type of sampler (tension or zero-tension) depending upon the water status of the soil. It was also hinted that depth might be a factor. From the material I've read dealing with forest soils, depth would be a CRITICAL factor, particularly if you are sampling with zero-tension lysimeters. They sample flow through macropores, and their numbers decline significantly with increasing depth. So, while we are placing some pan lysimeters at depth, we are not expecting to collect much water in them. Thanks, Hobie Perry -- C. Hobart Perry hperry@forestry.umn.edu Dept. Forest Resources 612-625-5765 University of Minnesota, St. Paul 612-625-5212 (fax) <------------------------------>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 16:10:09 CST From: Lemon .<.MS-MONAN@VM.MSSC.EDU.>. Subject: unsubscribe Can I unsubscribe from here? I promptly lost the info on how to do this - sorry . My system can't handle all the mail so I'm backing out. Suzan Morang ms-monan@vm.mssc.edu <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************


From root@crcnis1.unl.edu Sun Mar 31 11:11 EST 1996
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 10:02:55 -0600
Message-Id: .<.199603311602.AA23275@crcnis1.unl.edu.>.
From: soils-l@unl.edu
Subject: SOILS-L digest 502

Contents:
Re: Compost and sustainable agriculture seminar (ORGANICLLY@aol.com)

<---------------------------------------------------------------------->

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 11:02:04 -0500 From: ORGANICLLY@aol.com Subject: Re: Compost and sustainable agriculture seminar I am an organic farmer. I have a CSA, it is going into its 6th year. I could give a talk about Community Supported Agriculture. Paul Magedson Good Earth Organic Farm Rt. 2 Box 343 Celeste Tx, 75423 903 496-2070 Organiclly@aol.com <------------------------------>
End of Digest ************************
To AGRONOMY homepage @ SunSITE


Prepared by: Steve Modena AB4EL
Comments and suggestions to: modena@SunSITE.unc.edu