JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Water Holding Capacity and Hydraulic Conductivity According to Compaction and Saturation Degree for Perlite amended with Ground Coir
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Water Holding Capacity and Hydraulic Conductivity According to Compaction and Saturation Degree for Perlite amended with Ground Coir
Kim, Gi-Rim; Woo, Hyun-Nyung; Kim, Hye-Jin; Park, Mi-Suk; Song, Jin-A; Song, Tae-Yong; Jang, Hyo-Ju; Chung, Doug-Young;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This investigation was performed to determine the hydraulic conductivity coefficient and water holding capacity for a specified compaction forces which are the amount of mechanical energy applied to the porous granule (PG) volume. Most current specifications of minerals and perlite as growth media require to be compacted to a specified density, which in general is equivalent to a certain percentage of laboratory compaction. The water holding capacity of the saturated PG was very large at potential above -1 bar compared with perlite, but very little water remained below this value. The water holding capacity and hydraulic conductivity characteristics of graded PG amended with the ground coir less than 2 mm in diameter were also determined from pressure outflow data. The saturated hydraulic conductivity of the saturated and compacted PG was slightly lower by more than one tenth order of magnitude at equal matric potentials of perlite, but when expressed on the basis of equal water deficits, the conductivity of PG was higher at all but the smallest deficits than those of perlite.
 Keywords
Perlite;Compaction;Water holding capacity;Hydraulic conductivity;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
ASTM Standard D698. 2007. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/D0698-07E01.

2.
Bohn, H., B. McNeal, and G. O'Connor. 1979. Soil Chemistry. A Wiley-Interscience Publication. pp. 149-151, 162-181, 223-225, 284-286.

3.
Cho, Y.R. and Son, J.E. 1998. Drainage Characteristics and Water Management in Perlite Substrate. Journal of Bio- Environment Control 7(2):1-157.

4.
Hall, D.A. 1988. Perlite plant guide 9. Perlite Institute Inc., Chicago. p.1-2.

5.
Hard. 2010. Perlite. Accessed in http://hard.blog.me/70082767040 on 21 March 2010 (in Korean).

6.
Hillel, D. 1982a. Fundamental of Soil Physics. Academic Press. p.1376.

7.
Green Art. 2011. Perlite and peat moss. Accessed in http://blog.daum.net/greenartro/6021387 on 7 April 2011 (in Korean).

8.
JEII (Jeollanamdo Educational Information Ins). 1998. Perlite. Assessed in jnep.cnei.or.kr/wiz/user/jhorti/old_jhorti/class/jajetext/perlite.html

9.
Naddaf, O.A., Livieratos, I., Stamatakis, A., Tsirogiannis, I., Gizas, G., and Savvas, D. 2011. Hydraulic characteristics of composted pig manure, perlite, and mixtures of them, and thir impact on cucumber grown on bags. Sci. Hort. 129:135-141. crossref(new window)

10.
Rural Development Administration (RDA). 1997. Theory and its application to cultivation of crop physiology. RDA, Korea. p. 304-330.

11.
Sim, S.Y., Lee, S.Y., Lee, S.W., Seo, M.W., Lim, J.W., Kim, S.J., and Kim, Y.S. 2006. Desirable Particle Size Distribution of Perlite for Tomato Bag Culture. Journal of Bio-Environment Control 15(3):231-238.

12.
Smith, D.L. 1987. Rockwool in horticulture. Grower books. p.36-57.

13.
Son, J.E. and Cho, Y.R. 2000. Analysis of Physical and Chemical Properties of Perlite Substrate. Journal of Bio- Environment Control 9(1):20-26.

14.
Wilson, G.C.S. 1985. New perlite wywtem for tomatoes and cucumbers. Acta Hort. 172:151-156.

15.
ZI (Zeal International). 2000. Standard Compaction Test. Assessed in http://www.zealinternational.com/soil/zi3015a. asp