+ All Categories
Home > Documents > DOJ93MGW - js-soilphysics.com JapaneseSocietyof SoilPhysics , ˘ˇ ˆ˙ ˝ - ˛ ˚˜ ! "# $%& ’()...

DOJ93MGW - js-soilphysics.com JapaneseSocietyof SoilPhysics , ˘ˇ ˆ˙ ˝ - ˛ ˚˜ ! "# $%& ’()...

Date post: 17-Jun-2018
Category:
Upload: vukhue
View: 212 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
62
./ 腐 腦腟腫腱腑腎腆腌腊腇腅腋 腃腍腨,**, 腭腡 +.腩腥腦腟腫腱腑腎腞腙腯腄腠腣 腚腰腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂+ 腣腛腜腟膲膭腓腠腑腙膑膬自腥腚腬膐腰臈膥腕臂腪腌腎膤膌腓臈膥自腥臒臇臩膵 腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腻膐 膇膒膢膰 膯臄 臡臨腪臉 膚膮- 臤腯臌膾膏臍膷腓臕臟膤腒腈腋腙臐膘膔膻腨腈腗腔臈膥膪臜腓臞腩 膵臁膂腫腚膾膨腐腌腏腁腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂膯臅 腺臚膟臲 膧臦+- An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed Managements Using USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia 腂腂腂腂AFANDI, T. K. MANIK, B. ROSADI, M. UTOMO, M. SENGE, T. ADACHI and Y. OKI,+ 膑膬臯膑腦臈膥腓膪臜膦膸腊臈膥膄腽腳膬腒腼腖腍腤膀 腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂膣臧 膶臮 膿膒膭腧 -/ 腖腔腉腀腈 臈膥腓臐臃臋臭膵臁臢腓臗腱腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂臣膃 膚膜膎膆 腡膣 膅膈.1 臈膥膾腓腝腞膍膗膴膽腓腮臰腐腝腞膍膗臠臢 腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腡臥 臔臙臉膰 膼腹/+ 膖膱 TDR 臢腳臫臈膥膾腓膪臜腦臜臱腓臊膕膵臁腁 腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂臆臘 膉膝/1 ,+ 膫腹膪腶腷 臓腉腘腓臖膳腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂臀膺膰膙腢01 腮腜腘腓腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂腂02 臈膥腓臛臬膬 3-臝膭 +/ - ,/臎臖膊 - 腭臖膊膡至./1 -+腲膛腴膊臛膠臏 ISSN *-210*+, 3- ῍ῌῌ῎
Transcript

� ./� �������� � �����,**, ��� +.� �������������� ���� ! "������������������������������������ �� +

# $

������� ���������������������� !"�����������������#� $%�&' (�)* +,��- ./� -

012345678�9:; <=>? @A:BC��DEFGH"IJK�3LM�NH�����������������)O PQ�RS TU�+-

An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed Managements Using

USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia

����AFANDI, T. K. MANIK, B. ROSADI, M. UTOMO, M. SENGE, T. ADACHI and Y. OKI�,+

��V�W��DEXYZ��[\]�9^_`ab�����������������������cd e�fg h%�i j�-/

%&'()

��<klm"Inop�����������qr .s�t� u�vc wx�.1

* +

��3yz{|}~��Myz{|�n�����������������v� ���-' ����� ���� ��/+

, -

�� TDRn]�H��3DE�WE���"IH������������� ���/1

. /

�,+��D�� ������ �����������������������'� �01

0123�����������������������������������������02

��¡¢� £3-¤ ¥ +/¦ -r,/§�¨ ©¦ -ª�¨« ¬­./¦ 1r-+§ ®¯°¨¡±² ISSN *-21³0*+,

£ 3- ¤ ����� �4

� � � � � �

��������� +� ���������� �Japanese Society of

Soil Physics� ����� ,� ������������ �����

��� ������������������������

� -� ��������������� �!��"#

� � ���� �����$��%&�'(� ��) *������ �Journal of the Japa-

nese Society of Soil Physics�+ ������,-���"

� �.�� � ���/�������� 0����1�

� �2�� !���"� ���� �������������#$%!�� .� �����3�� %�3� �&�3��45�

3� 6'�3� .7��� �3�%���(83��)*�9:%:2;%<%= +����� ��>����?,@�-:A%:2;%<%=

� /� �3� ��.�B/�C0DE1��F����% � 3 2 G /,/**H�&�3 2 G -,***H�3�I&�JK�45�3 LM2G ,,,/**H6'�3 �)2G 1,***HNO4 45�3 +/,***H

45�3P. ,,,/**H� 0� ��� �53�QR 6C� ,2���

�ST� -C78�U6�*�%= 9A:;� @�

� �< +=� >�< +=� ?VW3< +=%�3�@X<(83�@YZ9A[2�

� (83\ +/= %�3�@X<9]@YZ9A[2�

^ -=P���<_%�3�@X<WA��� �`ab ,=%�3�@X<(83�@YZ9A[2�

� c ! de=

de=�fB� �`� ?V�c!��<_WA��

� 1� �<�C2 +gPDE���(83��FV��

� E������hi8jk�ElYZ� !�`m� Gn�jn� �H�IoJ�j/�� E��%�3���&�3Ep�[2�

� (83��� �3�9]@<%=53�9A� E�8q� ����U$!r�s���(83��8<��<_�2l��

� E���(83��8j�W6K�JKLMj��� �ST� �H�Io�� E�ANt�-O� ,PD�4��$��

� 2� �����B��(83���E��8�uZ��<�>�<�?VW3<��c!_�2�v"���Bv"#$%wP�Q/��

� 3� ��� �W3��QR� 9]x�W3�

%�3�@X<(83�@YZ9A[2� ����(839]�x���

� ?VW3�%�3�@X<(83�@YZ9A[2�W3@YZp�[2� ��)����,-��?VR��

� ��S9yW3�%�3�@X<(83�@YZ9A[2�W3@YZp�[2� ��S�9y��

�+*� ����u.��.����zT�{YZlZ� �����`2U�C2 .| +0}D�V2 -| -+0~��

WH � ����7XY���2�RO�� ZR,**-2-|-+0DE�++-�20/1 [�\ ��]&+�+�+[�3�3�I �&^��� �&������_� ��`a�� ��

,**-2.|+0X<�1**�2/-* ������bc@-�+�+��3������d��x���� &��ex��Of�

� ��H�� ,**-2 .| +0@��"���,**,.++.,-�%�

���������������������������������������������������������� � ��

+� gt�#�h%R�F +i�����3E%:2;%<%=� �ST?VW3�_�jT�k������E�%=�

,� ����l�?VW3�_j/��� ?VW3��� *� + Q@� *� ���+ �=Z� ,=����� +=��'t�9�E�'��j���

-� m�����O���@��+� *� + (Original papers) : no�_l�� ���������� Q@�����p���$%[2�F�� L? �� �TZ�p��q¡Z=Z��)r���F����s ��� ,/* wordsP��¢ Abstract�� ¢ ��� /**£P��s $>��:����

,� *� ���+ �Notes� : ���������tT=!¤¥� :;��u%&�v=wOE�no�_l��)r���F�� s ���+,/ wordsP��¢ Abstract�� ¢ ���,/*£P��s $>��:��

-� *Ex+ �Reviews� : ���������¦y�=Z��2DE�� �E§T�¨©���:ª��z��F��

.� *«x+ �Lectures� : ���������0!r��«�`����{¬%«x� %<�� �����/­������|®%&�

/� *� |®+ �My research� : ¯°"YZ=�� �����)J±²[2�� � � D��}%&�=Z�{¬%|®�

0� *³4+ (Miscellaneous) : NR�3�´y�%�wO¥~w�

1� *��µ+ �Readers’ column� : *������+¶�����=Z���¥·$%&�

2� *?(+ �Book reviews�.� m����-�D_� 0¸�¹P��T� �2�º¡�k�� +¸�¹l�� 3,***H�gt������D��»¼�,-�k��¤.�gt������

/� ������� ��� �Foreword � �����Lecture series ���� ���� � ���� ������������ ������������ �!"#�$%&'�()�

0� ��)* +����� +�� ,-. ,�'/ -�����0� ��1�� �23�������4��5� 6���)*�

1� ������ ������3�#"7�89����:������� �"!;<.=>"������"��*�>"�?@�A#�B$����3�#"7� �%���� �"���&"���)*�

2� &"�'��(��CD"���� ����)�� 0EFG*�H��IJ���K��0LM�N�)�

3� &"O��+O'P�)*�>"���,�����Q0RSTP'���-I���

+*� �S0� -*��&"�./)*� UJG0�V1)* +�23�,��3*�

++� �W�?@IJ"456'&XY�789%Z��[:)*�

�+333. ++. ,*\�

�������� �� �+� ��]'��' +� A .;� ,/<� ,-$��� 0L^_� -*mmG0'=>��*� �.?` +a.b��* �

,� ��]'���� �cD�@A� &"B��K� U'd��e]`� @A� &"B �f=g.h � C:ij�CkD����97�5��KlD*� >"�E +a.b'mF�� ��]'C:ij�CkD� /

nG*'o.p.q����-� 45�rstuv.w��� e5Abstract'L�

/nG*'e]' Key words�23*�.� e]'���� A .;� xy=za.z`XG)*�H 0** words` +a.b��*

/� e]'45�rstuv.w�� Manuscript title,

Full names of authors, Address of institutions of

authors, ,/* wordsG*'e5Abstract� �rs /

nG*'Key words����97�5��KlD*�0� e]������]I{� /nG*'��]o.p.q�23*�

1� e]'J�|�)}�&"'KL����$%~�� MN�Z45���"0O��"0�"~�'d*e]'g���yz-.�.�r#�����IJ��*��1>���

2� �O$P��B$�����)*�K��� p.���fwB�� �"f��=>"��ozwf��='Q#"f��-.��z��R�)*�

3� �5��S'N���� +�� ,�� -��T'N����+�+� +�,� +�-� �'N��� +.+�+� +�+�,� +�+�-�'r%�)*�

+*� ����� �����6'<U8� 0�K� L�K5<���>�7!��5<���VW�'"D�X`(#)*�

++� Y]�Y:��%�K����cD�UJ��"�K���BZ��&� ) �[ : \�����]^�CEC �

+,� _�'��`�� _�¡ �SI �r*�

+-� a� @� bc'�:�� a +� @ ,� bc -'r%���� e]�d¢)* +�� Fig. +� Table ,�Photo. -�)*� e]'��`�� bc� Fig.���£%�

+.� a� @� bc�eIBfQg��� h¤���@�a�i��@ )*��j3*�

+/� a� @� bc� +?k�A .;`XG)*9� >"�A .;'1�l0�3*� =>�&"B�a@6'�:��X`¢)�

+0� a�bc�U'>>mnIJ*'`� o��&'���)*�

+1� a� +/,p����rU'qfr�(#�� ,p�7��sK���� a't'uI85<'sKI�� S00�0'sKI�¥v��AD*�

+2� Da8¦w§bc��#x�23� qx8pr�23���

+3� ��]'45� tuv.w' +� a� @� bc'AB��e]�y¢)*�

,*� a� @� bc'�:�AB�� �1�>�D�¤z@�)*�

,+� �5{`5¨�©|)* +�� &"B �}~ �>"� �&"B�}~ �)* �[ : Tanaka �+33. ��Nakamura and Suzuki, +32+ � &"� -BG0' +�E +&"B'd����7� >"� et al.�23* �[ : ª�7 �+312 � �Tayler et al., +3./ �

,,� ©|5¨�� �5'd��&"B'ABC����� ��@� «��©|5¨���¢@����

,-� ©|5¨'�K`�GL'r%�)*�Bouma, J. and Dekker, L. W. (+312) : A case study

on infiltration into dry clay soil, I. Morphological

observations. Geoderma, ,* : ,1�.*.

FAO (+322) : Revised legend of the FAO�UNESCOSoil Map of the World. p. ++3, FAO, Roma.

¬��­ �+31* : 789%�aq�b.� aq�bzw� +. : ,2�--.

ª®���¯(�+303 :789%�p. //��°���±��²W'a.b�� p.8 pp.�23��� �'_�a.b� ) +�� p.,�a.b� ) +�� pp.�23*

[������� SI��� ]

� _�¡�SI �2�����'�n9`��IJ��*'`�~~���789%���j�'��_�'�|[� )�

��IJ*_� �D7J*_�³�� kg kg´+ *U�³�r m- m´-

U� m- L, cm-, mL�g kg m´-, Mg m´-

�g kg m´-, Mg m´- g L´+, mg L´+

µ=�g mol m´- mol L´+

� N��¶���·=J kg´+ kPa, m, cm, **��¸� m s´+ cm s´+

�����]^ molc kg´+, cmolc kg´+

�� s´+ min´+

�^ kg m´, kg ha´+, Mg ha´+, t ha´+

*

**

�@ �� ���������;'*]�hc&'' +�¹3|�*�cm H,O��!���U'�� º�'d*&'�2���»N��������`¼ )*�

�,***. -. +*\�

� � � � �

���� ����� :

� ��� � � � ���������� � � �

� � �� ����� �� �� �� ��� !"# $%

&'�(��

&'�)��

*�+�,���- : /./0�

*�+�,�)- : /./0�

123 +

4�5678 � � �9�:�9

123 ,

4�5678 � � �9�:�9

123 -

4�5678 � � �9�:�9

; < = > 3

? 7

@A�FAX��

E-mail

B

TEL : FAX :

Eomail :

��CDEF A. : � E� � .**6GCDHI � E�

& E J E K L E

M N O -*P � /*P � +**P � +/*P � ,**P � -**P

� : QDRS=T!UVWX�Y�Z[�\]^_R`a�http : //wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jssp-�

���������� � �����������

��������� � ���������������

� � � � �� � � � !"��#$

% & ' ( ) *+ ' ( )

� , - . / � 01 � 23 � 45

6 7

89:;<3=

> . ? � @

1'( A*+'�(B *+ ' (

C D �

CD�EFGH

CD�IJKL�FAXKL

CD� E-mail

M N O EH

MNIJKL�FAXKL

MN E-mail

�P�Q� CD� � MN

R0�STUVEW0�

R���XQ'() :

YZ'() :

�Q�H++-�20,, [\]^\_R`& /�+0�3 0�abc: C,+

defg )R0��Dabc: �,hDiTel. *-�/2+.�/2+* FAX. *-�/2+.�/2,/

E-mail : bcasj-mem,@bcasj.or.jp

� � : ,**-� ++� ,,� ������ : �� ���������� ��������� ���� !

"1**�2/-* ��#��$ +�+�+

+� ������% & ��� ������������'(��)*+)$,- ��./0!123,456�7�89:;<=3>?@ABC �D�EFGHIJ- )� K <, LMNO 1PQR- =S��)�'(��)T1UQABCVW- �X �,**.�X� )D�EFGH�% &J LYZ !<�[;\����'(�O �]+� 1^_4R`ABC

,� ����������% & L�'(�ab)cde Challenges in Soil PhysicsOfghi>�'(�,jBkcl- cmn)abop1E�q �rsDt�uvIwxBky:z{HIBC |�)}~�V�P1��`54ABC ��- �vV�)��,�`RJ�h� H� F1����`C

-� � !"�')��� �1^MBk��)�wJ- �'(��>��B��% &)��IBC �I- �'(��h,���`R`k��)�- ?k`Jj���)�,�P1��� - cl)^M¡¢8r�[ V�1£¤4R��- ���¥¦)§¨1�©kª«V�'(�)^M��,jBk¬�­®)¯1°±`54ABC

.� #$%&'/� ()�*+,-./01 2345�²�- �h� H� F,³´4ABC

6 ./7 ���'������ 89:;<

=>?@AB�'(��hµ�¶ �·�¸µ�"1**�2/-* ��#��$ -�+�+�� �¹º�»�¼o� #Tel�Fax. *20�,/+�221-�E-mail [email protected]

�'C��D��http : //wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jssp-/index.html

,**, ��� +.� �� ���� ����� ����

������ ��

+� �� �������� ,� �� �������� +���� ��� �������� �� !" -� #$� ����%�& +'()�*+#$,-./�012!" � #$�34�5�6789:;� ��<=>?@A!"

.� BC ����DEFG�BC�� BCH&����I�J /� KL MNO����IKL�J 0� P�Q� ���#$RS�TU/� BCH&�RVW��XYZBC!"[2R\]"

� ���^_!"��� �������� �� `a2bIc��d� .e +

fYZc��� -e -+fg\�hi,-.`j ��� kl2!" m,**,. ++. ,-n4o

������ �������

+� pq ���BCH&� m(rH&�2�Jo �� ���BC�J[2pq2!"

,� s= H&��tu�s=�J � ���vwx4�yz����BC � ���������BC�{!"P�Q�<|

-� }~ H&��H&� +'�*GH& /'����I}~!" � H&��%�&*+}~,-" � H&���&��#$�yz]O�\�4!" � ��� ,�2!" .�b� ���,g.�S� � H&��H&��B�*+BA!"

.� �� H&��� -�����!" m,**,. ++. ,-n4o

������\�� r��7�\���01 m#$o ���.bg! �

����� : ��k l � : ,**, m�~ +.o ��� �������� m� 3+� 3,� 3-�o �

hi,-. ��� moriginal paperso# $ � � : ,**- m�~ +/o � 2e ,3f m��o� ����#$5�� : ��S�����r�� m o <=>g\�¡�U¢£r,�K L : ,**- m�~ +/o � ++e

���������BCH&�

������<=>�¤=¥< ~¦ §¨1**�2/-* ¦©§ª«X -�+�+� ¦©¬�­®�¯�8°http : //wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jssp-/index.html

,**-� .� +���� ���� ��������������

��1**�2/-* ������� ! -�+�+

��"�#$%&�'#$(%&�) *+,-(%�./0

12 *20�,/+�221. 3�45� 221- 3675

E-mail 67 [email protected]

URL http : //wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jssp-/index.html

89:; !<89 =>?@A 3ABC +*.5DE +11/,,/ FGH%�� �4 IJKL

MFGNH%OP ������ 3QRSRTUV5WXYZN[\]^\_`abNcNdef�gZhi�

http : //wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jssp-/

E-mail [email protected]#rc.go.jp

��������

� � �*

������������ ���� ������������������� ��������� ���� � �������� �����!�� �������"#$���� %&'(#�)��*#*��+��, � -�./0#123���4�56����7�� "#$�8�&9*��:�;7�� ����<� ��<� �����=<7:� >#$� ����?@�;��� A � "#$�*#*���BC� �,�����DE��5�AF./0#123?:�!���GE��5�AF

+,� � !�H ���?" �#�$ �%I�&J'���KLMN�7 O��P3Q$R?S<J�� ����� A77��(+4� )*�����"�E�+��,�������?TAEP3Q$BC�-.5�/U 4� -��� VW���!���� O�7�R T0�XY*Z#[5+4� A � 12+3Q\]^� KLMN45��_�?U`���� +�a&����P3Q$��C6����7�A� ��-�b�����78�cd 49����� e� 49��7:f?g;hi�� ���j���7�k�������lm�KLMN�7��n<56?=>E����o�pq����$ �P3Q$�?r��@E����A7�� +*�<� sB7���Ct !��E���D����ECE�FGD�H�?uCIEJK�2L�7�e�5�� v-;�Mw7��lm�N� e� 4H��xO 7� O��R D�y+4��� �����z��N�&J'������%I56�{��|�e��7�� O��R �� ��� e�PQ �C6�� A �}~��� �L?r�)�7����� e�2L?R6�"�e����7�� S��:�7�C4�:�T?PQE�AF�&?�64��7�"#$������� "#$U������ e� ,�<�rVW�?Wo4EX�DY���r?S��G �J�� rZ�!��� ��r�[�� �8\]<�xE����^�_�?`C� a�,b��lm���3c���E�e�� ��������� ���^������rd�e9��#������� �rf g���4���������!�� ���_������� �rd�he9?'2�#Y����+����!�� 4e��ir���r�j� �k��� +�-�ir��?K�#* �ir��P2���$ ¡�?l� 4���m�e� ��������45 �e�;�ir���r�¡> � ;�¢�J?���e��k{�£n����� a�,b¤����:�AF���oCp�4���%I?�¥���4o��¦q?@�;����� ,b3c�� § §%¨]©!C ª rs�«¬�4�­t7��� ����u¬�7«®v¯ w°���rd�xCy¥�!�7±z�-.���� lm�������:�AF8\]<�r�lm���{qE�D²³J��G����� ?r��-.����8\|�,b7:�´}�7���%I���C'��7��~?g����5�5�U���� ª � 8\�x�?

J. Jpn. Soc. Soil Phys.

8\�]<�No. 3-, p. +�, �,**-

*�µ����¶a�&������ ·++-�20/1 �µ�9µ¸�& +�+�++� �� �¹ ,**-¹ �8\�]<�� ��P3Q$¹ 8\�]<�¹ 3, : .+�.,¹,� lm��º3%\�»¼� : http : //www2.cao.go.jp/cstp/project/envpt/index.htm

� � �

����������� ������������������������������ �!��"#�$%&'�����()���*�+,��-.�/�' 012�34�5(� 6.78� 9*�����/���:;�/� <=>?@AB�/&�C�8 /��DEFG,H�IJ��/�' K�<=>?@AB������L�$���M7.�/�� N�����LOP(Q�66�(RS8��//' T�T�<=>?@AB�UVWXY8��������.�/Z[�\&8$�' ��*�+,�/&]�8(^_�8(�P�[�/�' �Z�� `��a>bcdef�ghijklmene�5������� Eopq����������Mr�s ���tu vwxy�C�zr6��{�|�}��#.�/��8� ����(DE2����~��+,�e��~/������?��(�#-�$���&'-�� �!�����+,(���%&Z�+,�������( +��"#����$��+3P/�6���pq��'�Z���%^�������������8(�+3P\;�}����&���'�/' 6�\&pq8(� +,�/&\;� (]���V���;��\&� #��=���'{�8$�' �����$�]�8(6���=��8$%&' T��� 6&�� Society8(� ���)(]��8$[��RSP� �¡*#+,�$��\&¢-.£t/¤-.���8$�'�!�2�34¥¦(§�0¨©�ª��/�' �������6�§�1.�«�z7.�"Z¬��(/' �Z�� 6&��_­�Z�6T� ®¯­�°/±�U²³�����FG�:;C��\&� ´2#�����µ��¶3·��6��^4�¸�{�¹58$�6��6.�(�/'

����| º 3-» ¼,**-H2

���������� ����������������� �����

����*��� �**���**�� ��**

Soil Solution Concentration Prediction of Volcanic Ash Soil upon Addition

of Acid Solutions di#er in Anion Composition

Kouji KAMEYAMA*, Susumu MATSUKAWA**, Tomoyasu ISHIDA** and Hidemasa KATO**

* The United Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture

and Technology, Fuchu, Tokyo +2-�2/*3, Japan

** Faculty of Agriculture, Utsunomiya University, Utsunomiya -,+�2/*/, Japan

Abstract

The prediction method of soil solution concentration of volcanic ash soil upon repetitive

addition of acid solutions that di#er in equivalent ratios of nitrate to sulfate was examined in this

study. The method for prediction was composed of chemical equilibrium equation, electrical

balance and conservation of mass in soil solutions. The results were summarized in the follow-

ing.

+) There was a tendency of aluminum concentration upon addition of HNO- solution�uponaddition of acid mixed solution including NO-

� and SO.,��upon addition of H,SO. solution with

equal soil solution pH.

,) The model adequately described accumulative release of basic cations. This shows it is

ability to estimate acid bu#ering capacity of cation exchange and mineral weathering.

-) Concentration of monovalent anions was much higher than that of SO.,� upon addition of

acid solutions. It was considered that monovalent anions that remain in soil solution greatly

a#ected decreasing process of pH and concentration change of basic cations. Therefore, it

seemed that NO-�, which are di$cult to be adsorbed in soil, are a#ected the release of basic

cations and pH decreasing in soil when acid rain including NO-� and SO.

,� deposited to volcanic

ash soil.

.) The simulation results agreed well with the measured values of pH and accumulative

release of basic cations. These represent the most serious e#ects of the acid deposition on the

soil. Therefore, parameters used in this simulation model are useful for predicting the main

e#ects of the acid deposition on the Kanto loam subsoil.

Key words : acid deposition, volcanic ash soil, acid bu#ering capacity, chemical equilibrium

equation, anion composition

+� � � � �

+33-�+331������� -������ !�"

�#$ %&'()� pH* ..2�..3+,-$ ./(��0&123456789:;<(��<+,69=�456 >./?@A./B�C./DEF$ ,**,GH )�I

J. Jpn. Soc. Soil Phys.

JK(LM�No. 3-, p. -�++ �,**-�

*NOPQRSRSTUAPSVWX Y+2-�2/*3 NOZ[\]�^ -�/�2**_Z`RSPSa Y-,+�2/*/ _Z`]b^ -/*

�� : ��cd$ e�fJK$ �ghi$ 0Sjkl$ mnopqr

��������������������� ���� ������������ NO-

�� SO.,��

��������������NO-�, SO.

,���� ��� �!"#$����%&' (�)� +33+*�+�� AEC%�������� �,�-�� NO-

�,

SO.,��� � ��.��,�-��/ (HNO-, H,SO.*

��0�� 12��345��� (Huete and Mc Coll,

+32.*� 6789:;��< (James and Riha, +323 ;

Xu and Ji, ,**+* �=�>?�� @�)�A�����!� SO.

,� B�����C ��@��D!��#.��E�F�GH"#��6IJK5%�$"���LMN��O��%P.AEC%�������� (Q&�'(� +322*� @��R� 6IJK5%�$"���LMN��S���,����T345B��!��U)*�+A������ SO.

,�� NO-�!�O��SB���V�H�

NO-�, SO.

,� �W�����-�� NO-��X�Y=

B����.@��,Z��#.�(Kamewada, +330 ;

�-)� +332*� +�� ���-��T345�.,���� [\�12�/0��#1]^_�`&����=� ���-��345�%2�������-�T345����@��ab�3)c���#.� (de)� +32**�f"#� NO-

�, SO.,� �� �$������LMN

��S4]���5g� ���-����T345/h!iT345��$���R� 12��345����=�����j6�%PH>?��@��kl)��� @��R� NO-

�, SO.,� �� �$������L

MN��S4]���5g�>?78�m9�:;�kl)����c�� E�F�LMN��%<��n=�����>?78op7�>H�� H,SO.�-4]S�?@ (AB�q&� +332 ; rM)� ,**,* V HNO-��.� H,

SO.�-4]S�?@ (C')� +332* %<���#h�� s�t�Du���EF� NO-

�, SO.,��� �$

������4]���5g���>?78�G=vH��#.�.���� ����IJ�!����� pHK�� 12��345���L�� �����345[\L��wA�xy��H� M"� �zN����C ��{���#O|���;��� (rM)� ,**,*�@��R� PQR��� �����wA��M"��zN��}g%ST��#� �wA��<U%~"�� ����� NO-

�, SO.,� ��� �$�� pH

..*����-%��V��,��ab%~.� ���

-�����W�%X��YZ���5g����-[\L�78�'.#vH����h� ���������-����Du��;��w]_�� ���-�1���^�� �_`�!�a$��� ��� ���-����4]���5g�Al-��<� T345B�� +����b�%c��w]_����������V��,ab�8d}�c)�0���

,� � � � �

,�+ ������ �������� ef�g����h���i�%wjkl5mn(�o� .*�0* cm�CpI�;�q�%����,mm��.rj"%�@���������s��w��%c�+������h�� �8d�t�c�+�u¡����t�!"��������]1���� ¢£v������V�]_t¤ (��¥¦"Utw§¨©ª� +331* �xu#8d%~"�� «�¬y�� ­��r�����

+* ,/P� /* mLz®{¯�«�°�±� ,.* g���b±²�%|�� +.*M-NH.Cl�- -*mL%«�°��®{¯��,��� ,* /P³'�®{¯� +.*M-HCl

�- *.., *.,mL, +.*M-NH.OH�- *.., *.,, *mL%�,�� +´�}�µ¶� +~/h��� -* ®�"��� ��·-%¸#�� .* E�� HCl��.� NH.OH%�,��� /P�®{¯� *.+, *.*,, *.*+, *.**+, *.***+

M-NH.Cl�-% -*mL³'�,��� /* -*�6\}�

��+ ����s��w��Table + Physical and chemical properties of soil

pH (KCl*pH (H,O*�¹���� (�**+

CEC (cmolc kg�+**,

[\��345 (cmolc kg�+**,

Ca,�

Mg,�

K�

Na�

[\�T345 (cmolc kg�+**-

Cl�

NO-�

SO.,�

/40/

/40,

+1410

,,41,

*4-+

*4,+

*4+1

*4+3

*421

*4-0

+413

8dt *+ : º�»� *, : Shollenbergert*- : *.*+ M NaOH�- (,g : +/*mL* �0

����s� � 3-¼ (,**-*4

�� -*����� �������� ���� 0��� .� �/� +*������ 1� ����� �������� pH�� Cl�, NH.

� ��� �! ���"��� #$� pH%&'(�)�� Cl�%*+,-./01'234�� NH.

%5���6���7� 2� ��8�9� ��� ��8��:;7 NH.

,

Cl� � �<=���� 3� +.* M-NaNO- � -* mL �>�� -*�?"��� -*����� ������ �� ,** mL�@(2'(A���� B��� C��� /�����7�� ,** mL�@(2'(A ��"��� ��� NH.

, Cl�� ���� +*� ��3� D�EF7 NH.

, Cl��=<�� 2� D�EF7NH.

, Cl�� G�HI NH. J�� KCEC�� Cl�J�

� KAEC� "���L�6��EF7�M�N��O P�+�Q�

7� #$� P��R�%� �� K+32+� �6�STU �V��W�7X�DY�� �WU CEC, AEC�ZV�BF[FQ�7� #$� U�� \C] %�! ���NH.

, Cl� � Kmol L�+� Q��V��^_�M%� �M � pH`abO�bO c�Y�de� CEC6�XAEC`)f�!Ig� h*+,J�`�M �"i��j�kl`!IV"#$EF7�

,�, �������/* mL���8�m� ,.* g%&�'m� Kno(

*.+.0 kg kg�+� )F� �p�5�o -/ mL �>�pqrs"�7�5�o�>��?"�tD* +2uvwx=�?"��� ������� yz{0D* -*

mL|}�7���|}����8�% pH ..*� HNO-, H, SO.

�Y�V% NO-�, SO.

,� &�(`~#� pH ..*��e � KNO-

� : SO.,��*.1/ : *.,/� *./* : *./*� *.,/ :

*.1/� -* mL�>�� * +2uv?"�� ����� ��|} ��������7� |}����* /

mL �V�+��&'(�)�D pH ��� :�% *../ mm�@,�',23��4 ,�-.� ���7�� *+,� ��7� /*+,� KCa, Mg,

K, Na, Al� %0��4/,��J��� K2�4���� h*+,� KCl, NO-, SO.� %*+,-./01'234 �V���7��7� �>�7h*+,�J��%L��1�=<���7� C* : �>h*+,� Kmol L�+�� V* : �> �� KL�� CN : N�2� ��>���!h*+,�Kmol L�+�� VN : N�2� ��>��3 �� KL��VrN : N�2���|}��:� �� KL� "4�"� N�2�h*+,J���5�%� KCN�+�VrN�+ C*�V*��CN�VND�f<F�� CF m�9D���N�+�2=<>�e��7J�� K6�J��� �pq��Oh*+, K*.*+ M NaOH7�Oh*+,� >�7X� h*+,J�� Kcmolc kg�+� "�����7��1� �>�7h*+,"��eJ��6�� �M=<�8�� Cl� $6� HNO- � �>�7de�SO.

,�, H, SO. � �>�7de�NO-��J��%L

��1��6��f7� ��� N�2��M=<�8��h*+,�%� CN�VN�CN�+�VrN�+D�f<F��CF m�9D��� N�+�2=<>�e���C"�6�h*+,�6��8�`��EF�� B��� pq��Oh*+,�=<h*+,6��8� HV7��Oh*+,�:� h*+,J�� Kcmolc kg�+� "�7�#$� ���h*+,J�U� '@4�¡��¢��� SO.

,��9£V�:¤`;¥¦"#�� SO.,�%§

¨©�M�J��x�V7f� pH ..*bO � KSO.,� :

*�/�+*�. mol L�+� ��>D%� SO.,��ª�:¤�

�"J��"�«¬�<­#®`¯=�#�"°�<F7�C�7f� pH -.*� H, SO. ��ZV�X�>±T ²;7�

-� � �

�M ������V7³´�!U� �!��� rs#® �"f�4�,�Q�7� #$� µ±�bO���6��Mkl"(¶�� >qv�·�±TDY�� ?t@n��¸#V�A� �V77f� -¹@�6�¹@BbwºC%°D�#=;7�

pH ..*� HNO-, H, SO., �e � �>�7de�pH" p KAl- � �«¬ P�,�Q�7�#$� pH -.*�H, SO. � �>�7de�ZV�XE��».{0

��+ ^_�M�N��OFig. + Electric charges of soil.

FG : h*+,"i�~#�bO � §¨©�M¼�>�7de��M ��H 5

��� ���� p �Al-� � Sato et al. �+332� �� �+332� Fumoto et al. �,**+ ���� ������ �������� ������Al !"#Al-�, AlOH,�, Al

�OH,�, Al�OH-

* , AlSO.�� /"� $%�&'��

(�-)*�� !+,-� ./012� 3456789��� $:� !+,-7;�<%=)>?$+,'@� Wolt �+33. �A7BC�� DEFG@ Debye-

Huckel-HI�����J)� AlKFL'A7Al-�KFMNA�OPA��QRS�(�-)*��34567TU<%��VIW�;���� X�Q� 34���Y�Al-�KF;�A�Debye-Huckel-HI����DEFG@��Z� Al-�DEF7[\� Al-�DEF�]�^@A7�I� p

�Al-� 7[\��_�,� � �`���� pH�� Al-� DEF

HNO-aH,SO.�bI� H,SO.��cde�� cd�� SO.

,f ��g��Al-� �h�AlSO.� #i9jk%

�\� lm�Al-�DEF#njo$%�pS k��q��rs��cde�Al-�DEF� H,SO.��cdeHItYo� HNO-��cdeHInjo$%��#*jk�� $:� rs��cde�����KF;��� NO-

f, SO.,f u/v�w$% -"�rs���c

dxy� z k��gF{| �(�,� ���- 7C}��~�� Ca,�, Mg,� �/�~��K�, Na� �/7(�+�v�<%��~�� Ca,�, Mg,��/��#� +..��tY}� ���\� �������)�}Q� ���

��, ����KF;�)C}� !+,-� 56-Table , Chemical equations, equilibrium constants and conditions used in ion concentration prediction

+� ����������g�d��g��� �Al-��+.*-.�+*0�H�,.-/0

��� �Al-��+..+.�+*0�H�,.-1+

��� �Al-��+.,/3�+*-�H�+.20-

� Al-��H,O�AlOH,��H�

� Al-��,H,O�Al�OH�, �,H�

�xL : HNO-�xL : rs���xL : H,SO.

logK�f/.*, �Wolt, +33.logK�f3.-* �Wolt, +33.

,� ����~�� ,H��ExBC�BC,��,ExH

-H��ExAl�Al-��-ExH

logKBCfH �&'logKAlfH �&'

���� BC,��������� Exu/��� ExBC�ExAl�ExH�+

-� � �+, CO,�H,O�H��HCO-

f logK�f1.2, �Wolt, +33..� ¡���¢£����¤�� ¢£ �SO.

,f�cmolc�kgf+�/,3¥SO.,f¦*.,,/¥H�¦*.--/¥NO-

f�Clf¦f*.++/

� ¢£ �NO-f�Clf�cmolc�kgf+�.0.1¥NO-

f�Clf¦*.-/,¥H�¦*.+./¥SO.,f¦f*.*+-

�xL�xL

Al-��SO.,f�AlSO.

� logK�-.,* �Wolt, +33./� +J§¨�© ªF�� © ªF Fw�cmolc�kgf+�*.230¥H�¦*..* �xL

0� «¬���56

�� ���

�� �

�� ����

�� �

��

1� ./012�� SO,f

. �mol : ­��� �SO,f. �AlSO�. �¢£ �SO,f

. �cd �SO,f.

�+,®��� �SO,f. �AlSO�. �¢£ �SO,f

. �� NO-

f�Clf �mol : ­��� �NO-f�Clf�¢£ �NO-

f�Clf�cd �NO-f�Clf

�+,®��� �NO-f�Clf�¢£ �NO-

f�Clf�� BC,� �mol : ­��� �BC,��¢£ �BC,��+,®��� �BC,��¢£ �BC,�

�3456 ¯^°±� +,®���²/�molf+,³���²/�mol+,³���²/�mol ´*.*+

���¨µ� ¶ 3-· �,**-6

� ,��������� ������� �BC,� :

Ca,�, Mg,�, K�, Na����� ���������������+� !"# �logCEC$*.,13pH�*.-1. +og %C&'*.,31� ()* pH ..*+�,- �%C&$+.+*'.molL'+��/0123,-456789:;<=>?@�* pH 0

AB�C+�D+�EFGH CEC:�IJHKLMNO/�PQ=>�� R���* CEC� pHST�H����UVGHWX�O(���YZ* ����UV�[\]^HY_GHO`* UVa�bc���de�f��gh�* i�jkHgl !89GmnGo? �pq* +331�� �(�* r^����4sTt?uevwGH* bc���de�[\]

^��x]� �^_ht?R�Hy��z{�W|)>?�R���*[\]^�}~^(�Y_��*pH�_�����t?��_���������NO-

', SO.,' ���4lO? pH ..*��,-;<�

� NO-', SO.

,' ��bc����-����� NO-' :

SO.,'4 *./* : *./*�f� *.,/ : *.1/���,-�;<

��@��* NO-'��bc�4��O���H* ;<

�� NO-'489�bc�O/��<|�* 894��

�����/�UV�NO-'4;<=>� SO.

,'������UV�f��89,-���������W|)>�� ��* ������* SO.

,'H NO-'f��89�

bc=>�t/��* SO.,' 4sTt?89,-GH

NO-'HKLbc=>O/R�4�=>��

��, HNO-, H,SO., ��,-�;<��@��pH-p �Al-��

Fig. , Relation between pH and p (Al-�) upon

addition of HNO-, H,SO. and mixed

solutions.

��- pH ..*��,-;<��;<�������bc�

Fig. - Accumulative anion adsorption after

addition of pH ..* mixed solutions.

��- Alh� 23���¡/�h�¢£¤* ¥¦¤Table - Chemical equations, equilibrium constants and conditions used in

evaluation of aluminum species concentrations

+§ h�¢£¤Al-��H,O$AlOH,��H�

Al-��,H,O$Al�OH��, �,H�

Al-��-H,O$Al�OH�*-�-H�

Al-��SO.,'$AlSO.

logK$'/.*,

logK$'3.-*

logK$'+..33

logK$-.,*

,§ ¨��T©

ªAl$Al-��AlOH,��Al�OH��, �Al�OH�*-�AlSO�.

-§ «¬¥¦

��

��

�Al�_'ªAl�Al�_ ­*.**+

®¯ : ����de�lO?+�,-�56789:;<��@��89,-23°� 7

���� NO-������ SO.

,� ������������ NO-

���������� �� !��NO-

� SO.,��"����#$%&'()*� �

!�+ ,�� -.��� NO-�/ SO.

,� �01234�56���789�:;< Cl� %,�"����=> ��:;���� �� !�� Cl� -.?012 �@�"���%AB��C<DE�F � !�+ GH� NO-

� Cl��������IJKLMNOP(F � !��� QBolt andBruggenwert, +32*R+ S�(� TU���� NO-

�, Cl�

V +W?012 ��, ��XYZ�� +W?012QNO-

�[Cl�R ,W?012 QSO.,�R �"���VA

B(�C<� ��+*\� ]?012^���_�AB�L� ?012��_�`a012bc� ?012bc� "�012^�?012bc�de<� Vf< Freundlichg���Phi QMesquita and Vieira e Silva, ,**,R Vj��+ S��� ?012��i�klmnoL� pH ..*�HNO-, H,SO., p�78 pH -.*� H,SO.78V-.�����qr=>s!t��+,�� Guvw�xy�5z{K|0127}_

L� ]z{K|012~�:;_���34Kz{_V��6�z{K|012^�:;_��A� ��Bloom and Grigal Q+32/R� ��! Q+331R O�� Guvw�xy�5z{K|0127}_���78�`a012bc�de<� Vf<i QHelgeson et al.,

+32.R Vj�AB��+ S��� Guvwxyi Qf�,���iR L� pH ..*� HNO-, H,SO.,p�78V-.����Guvw�xy�5z{K|0127}_ ��78�`a012bc���s!t�� Q��.R+

.� � � � �

.�+ pH, ��������NO-

�, SO.,� ��_���* pH ..*�p�78V

�Y��-.�������78 pH�qr� AB����V� � /����+ *\� �9� logKBC�H,

logKAl�H Qf�,� �� �iR L��� �r��|01234��������V����+ ]78V-.����� pHAB�L pHqr� �*.-�����(G���+ ��� NO-

� : SO.,�� *.1/ : *.,/� *./* : *./*

�p�78V-.����� pH �¡¢(L£¤�qr� G���+ GH� -.¥�(Lqr�5Y%¡¦�AB���+u��§z{K|012 QBC,[R� +W?012 QNO-

[Cl�R� SO.,�bc�qr� AB�VNO-

� : SO.,��

*.1/ : *.,/� *./* : *./*� *.,/ : *.1/�p�78V-.��

���¨����0� 1� 2(S�©�����+§z{K|012 QBC,[R bcL� ]78V-.����� qr� AB��bcªy�«¬L£¤*G�V���+,�� +W?012 QNO-

�[Cl�R , SO.,� bcL� ]

78V-.����� qr� AB���*.+mmolL�+

�����(G���+ ���� NO-� : SO.

,�� *.1/ :

*.,/ Q��0R ���(L� SO.,�bcL­®¯�¡°�A

��. pH ..*� HNO-, H,SO., p�78V-.�����z{K|0127}_ QFwR `a012bc QH[R ���

Fig. . Relation between elution of basic cat-

ions and Hydrogen ion upon addition

of pH ..* HNO-, H,SO. and mixed

solutions.

��/ pH ..*p�78V-.�������78pH�qr�� AB���

Fig. / Measured and predicted pH in soil

solutions upon addition of pH ..* mixed

solutions.

���w±K ² 3-³ Q,**-R8

���������� � �������������������� ��� !"#$%&� '(��) +*+,-. /NO-

01Cl02 34� SO.,034567#�89

:;<�� ���� '(��)& SO.,0�=>��$%

&� +*+,-.�'(?@A��B�C&D�� EF GH�� '(�� I,-.J K�� �'(�

� +,-.J&D��5�LMN�O8������� PQ�� '(����>�� +*+,-.� pHRSTUVWXYZI,-.34[\�;<]^_#���5`a��

.�, ��������b��G�cdefJgh ijZ ����C�

pH ..* H, SO., k%�� l:m#!"#$% WXYZI,-.nopqJ5 SO.

,0no@AJ b�r5hsr 67 t�3� +*�u�v�w#� 9�� WXYZI,-.nopqJ�I,-.xy5z�{| }\�G�cdefJ ~�59�� &D:� SO.

,0

no@AJ� SO.,0@A�G�cdefJ ~�59�

� &D��WXYZI,-.nopqJ /t�32 hsr5b�r��*.+ cmolc kg0+�S ��&z�#� PQ�� I,-.xy5z�{| }\�G�cdefJ gh�ij&D�5`a��z�� SO.

,0no@AJ /t�+*2 � NO-0 : SO.

,0�*./* : *./*� *.,/ : *.1/� *.** : +.** $%&�� hsr5b�r�67N�]z�#�� NO-

0 : SO.,0� *.1/ :

*.,/ $%&�� SO.,0no@AJ�T;�gh���

!"# SO.,0 J���� SO.

,0 no@AJ /hsr2 �% /SO.

,0@A�2 !"���&��#��� NO-

0 : SO.,0� *.1/ : *.,/� *./* : *./*� *.,/ : *.1/�

*.** : +.** k%�� !"#$%� ��.-�� 12��10�� 13�59Q� NO-

0 : SO.,0� *.1/ : *.,/ k%

�� !"#$%� SO.,0@A��� �� !"#

��0 WXYZI,-. /BC,12� +*+,-./NO-

01Cl02� SO.,034 hsr� b�r

67 /NO-0 : SO.

,0�*.1/ : *.,/2Fig. 0 Measured and predicted concentration

of basic cations, monovalent anions and

SO., in soil solutions. (NO-

: SO., �

*.1/ : *.,/)

��1 WXYZI,-. /BC,12� +*+,-./NO-

01Cl02� SO.,034 hsr� b�r

67 /NO-0 : SO.

,0�*./* : *./*2Fig. 1 Measured and predicted concentration

of basic cations, monovalent anions and

SO., in soil solutions. (NO- : SO.

, �*./* : *./*)

��2 WXYZI,-. /BC,12� +*+,-./NO-

01Cl02� SO.,034 hsr� b�r

67 /NO-0 : SO.

,0�*.,/ : *.1/2Fig. 2 Measured and predicted concentration

of basic cations, monovalent anions and

SO., in soil solutions. (NO-

: SO., �

*.,/ : *.1/)

�� : +,-.�� �9�cZ�� ���'(?!"#$% '(��34gh 9

�������� .�� �������������������������� !"�# SO.

,$ ���% NO-$ : SO.

,$ �*.1/ : *.,/ *./* : *./* *.,/ : *.1/ *.** : +.**&'��()*+���� ,-2-� 2-� 2.� 2/������.�� NO-

$ : SO.,$� *.1/ : *.,/&'��()*+�

��� /0�01 2 SO.,$3 �456"7�" !��

�&% SO.,$����789:����#�;2<#

������2<#�

NO-$ : SO.

,$� *.1/ : *.,/&'��(% SO.,$�=

>�� NO-$3 �8?��; NO-

$� SO.,$&@�

��"��� SO.,$&����A��#BCD�EF

��#� .�� NO-$ "�# SO.

,$ &��&�A�SO.

,$��G&HIJKL"MN���������OPQ� !Q&R�S&�T��U���EF�����&�; NO-

$&V;#��� SO.,$�=>��W�

��&@���&XY)Z["\]^#���_`�EF����

/� � � � �

NO-$, SO.

,$ &a�=&b�#cd�efg���hi�����&XY�Oj&kl6mn���NO-

$, SO.,$ &a�=�b�#oD�()p��*+

����&���(3 q&�O)rs�� t&uv%wx"����#�

+1 pH-p /Al-y1 &z{% HNO-, H,SO.,'��(*+|2t�}�b�� pH�q�����(2&Al-y

3 % HNO-�(~'��(~H,SO.�(������<���

,1 ��kD���� ����& !Q%OPQ�=>6��S� ������� +���&��"�#o����&�O%�a2<#�EF����

-1 ,�()*+����2���(�& +:����/NO-

$yCl$13 % SO.,$�=>�����8?

���("��^# +:����� pH�x7����kD����3 ��"8?XY���#���EF���� .�� efg���NO-

$, SO.,$ )��oD

d�hi����� ��"������NO-$��k

D����&���t�"�� pH&�x7�"XY^#���2?��

.1 oD��"�#��XY)��^#�2 �k�62<# pH�x�����kD���� ����& !Q�OPQ%=>6��S� z¡¢K£x¤�&oD��"�#XY�O"����¥�¦G�t&HIJKL&§¨6©Q)ªP2?��«¬% ��2����¥�¦G­�®HIJKL��¯°±)²³6"´^Mixing Cellµ¶· /Appelo

and Willemsen, +3211 )u�� NO-$, SO.

,$&a�=�b�#oD�(�efg���¸¹����&�¯°±�O"U��\])º��P2<#�

� � �

Appelo, C.A.J. and Willemsen, A. (+321) : Geochem-

ical calculations and observation on salt water

intrusions, I. A combined geochemical/mixing

�3 pH ..*& H, SO. '��()*+����&��kD���� /BC,y1 ����&OPQ !Q=>

Fig. 3 Measured and predicted accumulative

release of basic cations upon addition

of pH ..* H,SO. and mixed solutions.

�+* pH ..*& H,SO. '��(*+¬& SO.,$

����&OPQ !Q=>Fig. +* Measured and predicted SO.

,� accumula-

tive adsorption after addition of pH ..* H,

SO. and mixed solutions.

��&��D » 3-¼ /,**-110

cell model. J. Hydrol., 3. : -+-�--*.

Bloom, P.R. and Grigal, D.F. (+32/) : Modeling soil

response to acidic deposition in nonsulfate ad-

sorbing soils. J. Environ. Qual., +. : .23�.3/.

Bolt, G.H. and Bruggenwert (+32*) : ������ ��������������� �� pp. 33�+*/� �������� ���

������ ����� �+331� : ������ �pp. ,+,�,+/� ���� ���

Fumoto, T., Shindo, J., Oura, N. and Sverdrup, H.

(,**+) : Adapting the profile model to calculate

the critical loads for East Asian soils by includ-

ing volcanic glass weathering and alternative

solubility system. Water, Air and Soil pollution,

+-* : +,.1�+,/,.

Helgeson, H.C., Murphy, W.M. and Aagaard, P. (+32.) :

Thermodynamic and kinetic constraints on reac-

tion rates among minerals and aqueous solution.

,. Rate constants,e#ective surface area, and the

hydrolysis of feldfer. Geochimica et cosmo-

chimica Acta, .2 : ,.*/�,.-,.

Huete, A.R. and Mc Coll, J.G.(+32.) : Soil Cation leach-

ing by “Acid Rain” with Varying Nitrate- to-

Sulfate Ratios. J. Environ. Qual., +- : -00�-1+.

�!�"�#� �+32*� : ������$�%&'()* �� ,�� ���$%+,(-./�0�12345�67� �������89� /+ : 3/�+*+.

James, B.J. and Riha, S.R. (+323) : Aluminum leaching

by mineral acids in forest soils : I. Nitric-sulfuric

acid di#erences. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., /- : ,/3�,0..

:;<=�>? ��2����@�#A �,**,� : B;C��D� E!FG"%H(!#F$%&I����'(J� 23 : ,/�--.

Kamewada, K. (+330) : Application of ‘Four-plane

model’ to the adsorption of KK, NO-L and SO.

,L

from a mixed solution of KNO- and K, SO. on

Andisols. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., ., : 2*+�2*2.

��MNO��PQR��STU �,**,� : ��)V*5 +.+%� pp. +*2�+*3� WXYZ[� ���

>? ��@�#A�,�*\��-. ] �+332� :

EJ!F^_`/a0@abc���!F$%1pH. ���'(J� 11 : ++�+2.

Mesquita, M.E. and Vieira e Silva, J.M. (,**,) : Prelim-

inary study of pH e#ect in the application of

Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms to Cu-Zn

competitive adsorption. Geoderma, +*0 : ,+3�,-..

d ef�1gh23�i>j=�45k����lmn�&lop�q6rs�@�7t�84uv�1w9:p�;;<��g x �+33+� : EJ=�'%+,(yEz/�1 Ez/��>?@%&'({|� �����9� +33+ : 3,*�3,3.

;� A�2}~#�B5CD�;2�E �+332� : -�����B;C�D� Ez/�0��"�JF�%��'��%�[�� *5 +*+%G��.��1������H�� : 0.2�0.3.

Sato, K., Wakamatsu, T. and Takahashi, A. (+332) :

Acid deposition and ecosystem sensitivity in

East Asia. pp. +,/�+.,, Bashkin, V.N. and Park, S.�U. eds., Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York.

���f����D �+332� : EJ=�%H(����JF���z�������%H(&I������H1��EJ���D�IJ%H(K �� �������89� 03 : .11�.21.

L5 ¡�@¢£M�N ¤�;l�¥�O�:��4P3Qf �+331� : ��EJ�¦R&I%+,(��ST�?�p§U � ��¨��9� +* : ,21�,33.

M�©ª �+32+� : ���0�«¬� pp. /�/1� ���������� ���� ���

M�jp� �+331� : ­����� pp. 1-�3/� ®Vp¯�� W°VX� ���

Wolt, J.D. (+33.) : Soil solution chemistry. pp. +/2�+0+,

John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

±� Y�?Z[f �+322� : EJ²���%H(;M³´� �������89� /3 : .+-�.+/.

Xu, R.K. and Ji, G.L. (,**+) : E#ects of H, SO. and

HNO- on soil acidification and aluminum specia-

tion in variable and constant charge soils. Water,

Air and Soil Pollution, +,3 : --�.-.

µ¶+·� : ,**,+ /· ,+�µ(+·� : ,**-+ +· ,3�

\] : ¸z/�¹5�º»(EJ!F^B;C��D0@ab¼O���!F$%&I 11

���������� �������� ���������

�� !"#�$%&'�

����*�����*

Changes of Heat Balance Components, Soil Temperature and Soil Water

Suctions at the Upland Field in Nakastsunai village, Hokkaido

Mainly about the Observed Results

Teruo ISHIWATA* and Nobuya KOBAYASHI*

* Civil Engineering Research Institute of Hokkaido, Independent Administrative Institution,

Hiragishi +�-, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo *0,�20*,

Abstract

At the upland field in Nakasatsunai village, Hokkaido, heat balance components, soil tempera-

ture, and soil water suctions were measured during cultivating periods over ten years. The

following results were gained :

+) From the results of the monthly average of heat balance components and soil water

suctions, soil moisture for the growth of upland crops decreased or became deficient in late May

and June, and there was a surplus from August.

,) The amounts of evapo-transpiration of the monthly average were -.+ in late May, -.0 in

June, -.* in July, ,.1 in August, +.3mmd+ in September and early October.

-) In early June and early July, the ratio of soil heat flux during the daytime to net radiation

with wet soil condition on a sunny day was more than that with dry soil. In early June, the ratio

of latent heat flux during the daytime with wet soil on a sunny day was about /*� and somewhat

less than that with dry soil. In early July, the ratio with wet soil on a sunny day was about 2*�and more than that with dry soil.

.) In early July, though the range of soil temperature at +cm depth with dry soil on a sunny

day was more than that with wet soil, the range at / cm depth with dry soil was less than that with

wet soil.

/) Numerical analysis of the changes of soil temperatures with wet and dry soil conditions

should be carried out to clarify which is better for the raising of the plow layer temperature in

early cultivating periods.

Key words : heat balance components, soil temperature, soil water suction, evapo-transpiration

+� � � � �

�� ������������������ �!"#$%&'( )*+,%-./�0�12345�

678� 9 �)! :;<=>?@A�B�)*! C�DE@FGHIJKL(MN��1! +,%OP�QR( SSTU-V4WXY�� VZ! +33+U9 [)�\�! C�D�]� ^_�OP@`Qa@)*! �5�

*bcdefg�� hiOjklm n*0,�20*, opqr2s2t +�-���� : uvFw! �5! OPxy! zi{

J. Jpn. Soc. Soil Phys.

OP@|}~No. 3-, p. +-,* �,**-�

�������������� ������������ ����� ���� �������������� � ��!��� ��������"� #$��%� &�� ����'� �(%�)�*+, ���-.���/��� ��0�12����3���45(%�-678$��%���9�� �������-�: ;�<�=0� ���������������������>��%?�@A� �� !B� +32,C� ����"��D0�E8FGE�"HI� ?��������C -�����#J�� (%$"#�#J<� K�L-M/E%���%*$��% ?�@A� &'()� +31/C� �������N*<��%O -�"HI�P8��"-�D0 ��� ��QR����+�*,S��T-UVFW.X/E%��-�0������� Y1����Z@*$%�2[3\]^4��_�5��,S�� `

��a^� ��bc����� +*d6 D�%T-efgF78<���K�9:F�h�\]���ij����"������;k ;�;��<lE%� �=� =<l�&>-m ?@<��% ?Ishiwata and

Kobayashi, +33/C�

,� ���������

,�+ ���� �� �����An,S-2[3\]^4��_�5��� ?2o

.," .+��Bp+.-"*1�C����-CDq�rs��� ?U. S. Soil Taxonomy : Fluventic DistrochreptC �(%� ����tu+F@�+ G<�� v8 0* cmwx-yEF�*�0� ,S���+-Gz�(���T-,S�* ,0 km2 {HE%I|-}~�� -*

6`��JK�i�- +,��-�#�Lx��0� +� ��M��2.,�� 2� ��M� +3.3�FGE ??�CN=ij��2[3=>� +33+C� ���2�8O�-/������-PQ RUE%��6���,S���S��� T�O (%�-��

O �a�O F@�, G<��,�, ����� ����T-�U� K�T-��=QcT-6-wx��=0�� ��`* ?+31/C ��V ����� �a^ : ����a^V Q%� +32-�+33,6�Rn�H�lE�G�W�� ?RnC : �W�6 Q%���X� ?GC : v8 + cm YZ<���X[ Q%����\� ?HC =Qc]��\� ?lEC : �8 1/

cm� +/* cm ZH<�N��"6bc���"6�* f¡¢^F_��£¤<��� ¥?I� ?ETC : ��F_��6£<��ET ?mmd�+C�+*¦lE�?/31.-�*.0¦tC���� t-�@`�"�(%�� �� : v8 +� /� ,*� /* cm a�§¢¨g¢g¢�bcF_�-d<�� +32-�+33,6�� ����ef : v8 /� +/� ,/� -/� ./ cm YZ<�©¢ª«¬fg Q%� +32-�+33+6� �=�

� + An�����tu+Table + Physico-chemical properties of the research field

F{ v8?cmC

g�­�?kgkg�+C

�+ N*h"?Mg m�-C

®��?m- m�-C

Ap+

�A�A�C

*�-*

-*�.3

.3�0*

0*�+**�

*4*./

*4*22

*4*/0

*4*,3

L

L

SL

GS

+4*-

*422

*422

+4+,

*4.*

*4--

*4--

*4.+

+**� : v8 +**Q0v�#��CF�i¯

� , An `��S����;�O Table , Cultivated crops and periods of the

research field

6 �� T�?��CO *

a�O

+32-

+32.

+32/

+320

+321

+322

+323

+33*

+33+

+33,

©¢°±©¢°±²³´©¢°±©¢°±²³´©¢°±°±µ¶·¸±ª¹©¢°±

.�xº

.�xº/�º.�xº.�xº/�º.�xº/�xº.�xº.�xº

+*�º+*�º

3�º+*�º+*�º

3�º+*�º

3�º2�xº

+*�º

* : ©¢°±�S»-��O

�����+ j 3-¼ ?,**-C14

������������ ���������� ������������ 3�� �!"#$%&�'(���)*+���,�-� ./ : 0+ +/* cm�12/34�567�-� 8 9:;R< :=>)?@� 9:�56A7��-BC�DEF��/GH!"#$%&�I)�86J�

+KL��- MI)�8K�I)NOPQ���RSTUVWX���NY6ZE��[\]^��-

-� �����

-�+ +*���� �/��I)�_`K� +*��a`K�bc��def���g�h�i��jkl5Km�� /�_`� +*

�a`Kn*��opq�--r+r+ Rn, lE, H, G, ETstH R�uvwx+32-C�i +33,C^g��jkl� Rn, lE, H, G,

ETstH R6J�,KL��- Rn� 0�Kyz56L�� {�|}~K����- lE� Rn����wx6L��- H� G� /�_`�i +*�a`^gc����� G� 3�� ���5��,�- lE� RnK�q��� /�_`� /1��i 3�� 1+�^g����6L��- h��|p�t�K� !"#$�[�K����h�\������i��-

ET� /�_`� 0�stH 1�K -mmd�+�ag� 0

�Kyz5 -.0mmd�+6L��� {�|��� 3�stH +*�a`K� , mmd�+�g�,�- /�_`� 0

�K ET� Rt�\z��� 1�Kc����,�- ���� 2��i +*�a`^g ET� Rt�\�+�

��+ DEF� ;Rn, G, lE, H<� �/GH!"#$%&�)*8 ;����$<Fig. + Measurement date of heat balance components (Rn, G lE, H), soil temperatures, and soil

water suction (white portion).

��, DEF� ;Rn, G, lE, H<� ���: ;ET< GH #: ;R< ��jkl5��� ;+32-�+33,<

Fig. , Monthly averages of heat balance

components (Rn, G, lE, H), evapo-

transpiration (ET) and rainfall (R)

(+32-�+33,).

 ¡ : ¢£¤¥¦§¨��©ªKs«�DEF� �/stH!"#$�w¬ 15

���� ������ /�� 0 ����������������������� !� 2"# +*$�%&'(����)*&��+��,-./��

-0+0, �����1234+32-56+33+5%&�����78�9-+., kPa

:pF;& ,./< =�>?@ABC�- D�� :+/ cm

�;� / cm�;�EFG���HI<� /��J./� +/� ,/ cm�;� -06-2�&����� J. -/ cm

�;� +1�� J. ./ cm�;� *�&���� KL����MNOP&��+�Q����RST�U��&�������������VW#/�� 0&�J. /�+/� ,/� -/ cm�;� .,�"# /2�&�J. ./ cm&�,1�&���� ������ 0X������������ 1� 2� /JY�;� ,-�"# -+�&�Z�/�[\] 0 ^_���`a�bc./�d�� +/#ef�$g -. +. +&� ET� R�hi :/�� 0 � ���������������������< Bjkl�X�&���

-0+0- mn�1234+32-5"# +33,5%&�opqmnBC�. D��� /��mn�J. + cm& +/r� /* cm& +*r&�Z� sJY&�mn� /�"# 2 "l�$t�� +16,*r�uv&���� +�w� JY�U�xymn�z"��� ���`a���� /�� 0�J. + cm� /* cm�mn{ :|}< � 1~ 2\ZX�d"��� 3"#sJY�mn������+*$� �JY�U�xy���Z� J. + cm&++r� J. /* cm& +-r����� ������ �-./�"������ :��< � J. + cm� /* cm&�mn���������VW#/��

-�, ����������� �-0,0+ /�&�����mn/� :+3205 / ,0� ,2>< [l�����mn�3�BC�/ D���+/�������MNP�+&�ZN����."��Q&� �>�����78�x����� �����&���� ,0>�>��Rn : ;�A¡ :=¢£< : ,,.-MJm9,d9+< � ,2>:,*.+MJm9,d9+< �x����� �>�X >�� Rn

�� /*�� lE }�./�� G¤�}�@A� ,0>& +*�&���� ,2>� ,*�&���� +/� ,2>�>pq¥n� ,0>\ZX� -rz�+�� ¦§&�¨©�¥n�>ª{�,2>&,0>\ZX�d"���

-0,0, 0$�����`aQ���Q [l�����mn�^ª

������ +3225 0 0> :=� 0��>��©< �^ª«`a���� +33*5 0 0> :=� 0

`a>��©<&�����mn�>3�BC�0 D��� �>�X�� :�¬�­¬< ��."���>�� Rn� 0��>� 0`a> :®/¯/

+3.-� ,*..MJm9,d9+< &x������ >� Rn� lE

[\] H¤�}�@A� 0`a> :lE : /,�� H :

.,�< & 0��> :lE : .1�� H : -2�< \ZX~~�d"��� !� G¤�}�@A� 0��> [��+/�&� 0`a>�� 0�\Z�d"��� 0��>�>pq¥n�� +1r&� 0`a>\ZX 0rz"��� ¥n�>ª{� 0��>& 0`a>\Z+r�d"���

-0,0- 1$�����`aQ���Q [l�����mn�^ª

������ +32/5 1 -> :=� ��>��©<

��- ����78�9-+., kPa=�>?@A:+32-�+33+<

Fig. - Percentages of days on which the soil

water suction was below --+.,kPa.

��. mn :J. + cm, / cm, ,* cm, /* cm< �opq;�,M :+32-�+33,<

Fig. . Monthly averages of soil temperatures

at depths of +, /, ,* and /* cm.

����°± ² 3-³ :,**-<16

������� +33*� 1 , �� � ��������������������1����� +32/��� !"#$�� 1 +��%&" -.+ cm� '("+.*� +33*��� !")$�� 1 +�%&" /.2

cm� '(" *.3 �*+,-./01234567� +330��� 8�9:;"<��=>?@��,� Rn"AB����CD� ,+.+� ,,.* MJmE,

dE+� �FGH�IJ�� AB�" Rn� 13�K lE�LMN@� HO�MLPQ" 3��RJ�� ST� ���" Rn� /,��I lE�MLN@U� .,�K H�MLN@�� V@?�W"XYZL[\��]� �����^XY�"_`aKbcN@^��d�� HO�PQKefg^V������^� AB�� Rn� GO�

ML; �+,�� "�� �0�� hidjkIJ��lmn�"AB���hio ,pqIJ�� AB�"rs�_`t��hiuv �wN + cm� ���xyKbcN@^ST�� uvKABz�]� �{|a;djk}� uvhi - �wN / cm� ��{d,�"���~�xy��� ���� ���"uv���!K -0p�dxyg^K� V�XvK�������uvhi -��{"xy��� ���>�� ����?� +332��q�{����./��J������������xyN�^V�"jkz���Ri� �u����T���{R^�"X��� �������3Gg��K� N@��^ �Radka,+32, ; Sharratt et al., +33, ; Sharratt

��/ / ¡�¢£�¤!^���¥������Fig. / Changes in heat balance components and soil temperatures on late May sunny days.

¦§ : ¨©ª,«¬­�®¯°�¤!^���� ��¤h±XYZL��� 17

and Campbell, +33. ; Sharratt and Flerchinger, +33/ ;

Sharratt, +330� �� ������� ��������������� ������ !�"#�$%&

-�- ����������'()* +� + cm� /* cm, -��.�'()* -�/�01 ��23�2�456&78��9:;<��=>�?%& +� + cm� /* cm @()* �� .�ABCD E/@F'G� 0@� �GHIJ#K E3�.�& L6� M NO�P E+� ,/ cm� �QR�5IK% E3�-�& 56�SI� TUVF ��WX�YZ�?IK%M��[\�?%& M 6>� ]�G^�K2_`��abcd�eJ5� ��WX fgh�[\�?%& 5G5� i�;G^�K� jkcl��

�2iF�m%M��no�?IK%& G^�K�����pqiK�� ���iF5� P ��WX�YZ�?% EP. J. Wierenga et al., +31*� M��[\�?%&M?� rs�tKI�� uv !wx�$%&

.� � � �

yz{|}�~/��� ]���P�HO,/ ���� ��������2 +*����6q��5�/@F'� 0@������5� 2@G� +*@�GHI�����IK%�[\�?6& L6� 1@W'� �QR56��-��-/ TU � ��WX����$S6&A� ]�G^�K�pq�� iF$%K�WXY

��0 0@W' ���;N�QR56N ��-� ������� -��Fig. 0 Changes in heat balance components and soil temperatures with wet and dry

soil on early June sunny days.

��h � 3-� E,**-�18

��1 1���������� ���������������������Fig. 1 Changes in heat balance components and soil temperatures with wet and dry

soil on early July sunny days.

��2 ������ �!"�#$ + cm� /* cm���%�&'(( : +�)*�+,

Fig. 2 Relation between the ten day average of soil heat flux and the ten day

average of soil temperature di#erence between + cm and /* cm depth.

-. : /01 234�56789:;���< ��9=>��)?��� 19

�������� ��� ��������������������� !�"#�$%&'�()��*+,�-. /01�23�4��-56

� �

�78�!9�:. ;<�=>?@=ABCD�EFGHIJKLM�NOPQ RSTFGJKUVWXYZ[�PQ\]!^_`a�CbcD�ERSTFdefghijk�lm�no

� � � �

Ishiwata, T. and Kobayashi, N. (+33/) : The water and

heat balance of farmland in Nakasatsunai, in

“Soil moisture control in arid and semi-arid

region for agroforestry (Anase, N. and Yasutomi,

R. eds) pp. ,*/�,+,, Tokyo University of Agricul-

ture Press, Tokyo.

pqrs�tu N�vZ w x+332y : z{|}~X����$%��������C��E����$$%�����������|� x�y �� F��� +3. : ++/�+,..

Radka, J.K. (+32,) : Managing early season soil tem-

perature in the northern corn belt using con-

figured soil surfaces and mulches. Soil Sci. Soc.

Am. J., .0 : +*01�+*1+.

����������Z � x+31/y : �$���

����]���� x� +7y ������ ���¡�� �¢£ .0 : /*1�/+-.

Sharratt, B.S. (+330) : Soil temperature, water content,

and barley development of level vs. ridged sub-

arctic seedbeds. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 0* : ,/2�,0-.

Sharratt, B.S. and Flerchinger, G.N. (+33/) : Straw

color for altering soil temperature and heat flux

in the subarctic. Agron. J., 21 : 2+.�2+3.

Sharratt, B.S. and Campbell, G.S. (+33.) : Radiation

balance of a soil-straw surface modified by straw

color. Agron. J., 20 : ,**�,*-.

Sharratt, B.S., Schwarzer, M.J., Campbell, G.S. and

Papendick, R.I. (+33,) : Radiation balance of a

ridge-tillage with modeling strategies for slope

and aspect in the subarctic. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,

/0 : +-13�+-2..

¤¥¦§¨ x+32,y : F��©�ª« ª«�� �¬�� p. -/ ­®¯° }±�

x²y��ª«³´RST�e x+33,y : RST�ª«+33+µ¶� p. -2 ·��

Wierenga, P.J., Hagen, R.M. and Nielsen, D.R. (+31*) :

Soil temperature profiles during infiltration and

redistribution of cool and warm irrigation water.

Water Resource Research, 0, ,-*�,-2.

¸¹µº� : ,**,µ 1º 3�¸�µº� : ,**-µ -º /�

���»�, � 3-¼ x,**-y20

An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed

Managements Using USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical

Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia

AFANDI*, Tumiar Katarina MANIK*, Bustomi ROSADI*, Muhajir UTOMO*,

Masateru SENGE**, Tadashi ADACHI*** and Yoko OKI***

* Faculty of Agriculture, University of Lampung,

Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro +, Bandar Lampung -/+./, Indonesia

** Faculty of Agriculture, Gifu University, +�+ Yanagido Gifu /*+�++32, Japan

*** Faculty of Environmental Science and Technology, Okayama University,

-�+�+ Tsushimanaka Okayama 1**�2/-*, Japan

Abstract

An evaluation of crop management factor (C) for co#ee using USLE method was conducted in

hilly humid tropical area of Lampung, Indonesia. The treatments were as follows : co#ee without

cover crop (clean-weeded plot) ; co#ee with Paspalum conjugatum as cover crop (Paspalum plot) ;

and co#ee with natural weeds (natural weeds plot). Weed management was done every two

weeks by clearing all the weeds in clean-weeded plot, and cutting the weeds around the co#ee

trees at a diameter of +m for the weedy plots (Paspalum and natural weeds plots). Two methods

of estimating C-factor for co#ee were used : (+) using similar condition with other crops (Ct), and

(,) using equivalent method based on the existing value of co#ee-C factor (Ce). The results showed

that the use of Ct gave soil loss prediction 3�,. times higher than that measured, while the use of

Ce gave +*�2+ times higher. The predicted values of soil loss using Ct were 1.1 t/ha/year and +..+

t/ha/year for Paspalum and natural weeds plots respectively. These values were still acceptable

and reasonable to the soil loss tolerance, and very low compared to the other Indonesian studies

which could be hundreds of ton/ha/y. This experiment showed that the measured co#ee C-factor

was *.*./ for clean-weeded plot, *.**0 for Paspalum plot and *.**. for natural weeds plot, which

were lower than the common value (*.,) usually used in Indonesia. By introducing the e#ect of

weeds as the weeds C-subfactor (Cs) and co#ee C-factor (Cb) obtained from this experiment

measurement, the co#ee C-factor (Cc) with various weeds coverage could be estimated by the

equation Cc�Cb Cs.Key words : soil erosion, co#ee, erodibility, USLE, crop factor

+. Introduction

Of all the empirical erosion models, the USLE

(Wischmeier and Smith, +312) is the most

widely used all over the world for predicting

erosion loss and guide for conservation plann-

ing. However, it is often used without validat-

ing or measuring soil specific properties and

rainfall factors, so the information generated

can thus be erroneous, misleading, and coun-

terproductive, which represents the misuse

and abuse of empirical equation (Lal, ,***).

The founding of USLE, Wischmeier (+310) has

warned the misuse of USLE, such as applying

C and P values from the handbook without

considering, and applying the factors too

broad, such as single C value for all cropland.

However, Risse et al. (+33-) showed that from

J. Jpn. Soc. Soil Phys.

������No. 3-, p. ,+�-- �,**-�

� �

the six parameters in USLE, the crop manage-

ment and topographic factors had the most

significant e#ect on the overall model e$cien-

cy. These indicated that most of the research

emphasis should continue to be placed on these

parameters.

The equation of USLE is also widely used in

Indonesia as a tool for conservation planning,

especially in watershed scale. Unfortunately,

the results were frequently overestimated ; the

value of hundreds of tons of soil loss per hec-

tare per year predicted by USLE is very easy to

be found in many literatures in Indonesia.

The above problems were arisen because it is

very di$cult to apply the USLE purely in Indo-

nesia, such as how to obtain an exact value of

crop management factor, especially for tree

crop. Because soil erosion experiment was

mainly concentrated on food crops in Java

Island, there are very few Indonesian’s litera-

tures of soil erosion for some popular crops in

Sumatra Island, such as co#ee, sugarcane, and

oil palm. The crop management factors for

those tree crops are frequently estimated from

the table in handbook, which are the results of

experiments in the other countries with very

di#erent conditions from Indonesia. In case of

co#ee trees, a very limited research was done

concerning soil erosion. Up till now, the values

of the soil erosion from co#ee trees areas were

mostly predicted by USLE equation using the

values from the table. So, creating a new crop

factor of co#ee tree from a field experiment is

very important.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the

value of crop management factor of co#ee tree

with di#erent weeds management using USLE

in a hilly tropical area of Lampung, South Su-

matra, Indonesia.

,. Materials and Methods

,. + Study site

The study site was located at Sumber Jaya

District, Lampung Province, South Sumatra,

Indonesia. The study was conducted during

four rainy seasons from +33/ to +333. The slope

gradient was -*� with an elevation of 12*m

above sea level. The selected soil properties are

shown in Table +. The soil was classified as

Inceptisols (Dystrudepts), which was domi-

nated by clay fraction in all depths. The bulk

density was very low indicating that the soil

was friable and porous. The soil reaction was

slightly acid with moderate cation exchange

capacity. The total rainfall during four years

of experimental period was ./.1.0mm, with

++-0.3mm per rainy season (usually from Octo-

ber to April).

,. , Treatment plot

The size of erosion plot was ,*m length and

/m width (+**m,). Two collection units were

installed at the lower end of the plot for meas-

uring soil loss. The first unit was a ditch with

the capacity of *.+m-, which was connected to

the second unit by seven pipes. One pipe

which was in the center, was connected by a

siphon to a tank and the rests were overflowed

to the water reservoir box in which a triangu-

lar weir and a water gauge was installed

(Afandi et al., ,**,). The sediment and runo#

Table + Initial soil properties prior to planting

Depth(cm)

pHH,O

Total-N(g/kg)

Organic-C(g/kg)

CEC(cmol/kg)

Texture (kg/kg)Bulk density(kg/m-)

Sand Silt Clay

*� +*

+*� ,*

,*� -/

-/� 0*

0*�+**

.43,

.423

.43+

.421

.42/

,40

+40

*43

*41

*40

-.42

+240

243

24,

24,

+-4-

343

34-

241

241

*4,/

*4,/

*4,0

*4,0

*4,2

*4,-

*4+0

*4+-

*4+-

*4+/

*4/,

*4/3

*40+

*40+

*4/1

30*

3-*

33*

3-*

������ � 3- ,**-�22

water in the ditch and tank was pulled out into

a drum with a siphon, thoroughly stirring the

contents in the drum and quickly extracting

/**ml sample with plastic bottle. The total soil

loss was calculated by measuring the dry

weight of sediment sample and the volume of

runo# water stored in the ditch and tank.

The treatments were as follows :

(+) Treatment + (clean-weeded plot) : Clean-

weeded co#ee. Ground surface was always

kept bare by hand weeding at two weeks inter-

val. This management is a general practice in

this co#ee plantation area was regarded as the

control.

(,) Treatment , (Paspalum plot) : Co#ee

with Paspalum conjugatum as cover crop.

Young Paspalum conjugatum was transplanted

in the experiment plot in November +33/ and

February +330. Paspalum conjugatum is one of

the weed species, gramineous perennial of

South Africa origin. Its stalks, hard and long,

are crawled over the ground, putting out an

irregular roots from joints. Its growth speed is

very fast and the rhizomes are dense. This

plant was widely used in both private and

public park areas in Indonesia.

(-) Treatment - (natural weeds plot) :

Co#ee with natural weeds as cover crop.

The seedlings of Arabica co#ee were planted

at +./m by ,m spacing on November +33/.

Weed management was done every two weeks

by clearing all the weeds in clean-weeded plot,

and cutting the weeds about +m in diameter

around the co#ee tree for the weedy plots

(Paspalum and natural weeds plot). Before and

after rainy season, the Paspalum mats (at

Paspalum plot) and natural weeds (at natural

weeds plot) were mowed at +/cm height. Appli-

cation of fertilizer and pesticides had been ad-

opted according to the standard practice.

,. - Weeds type

Sriyani et al. (+333) reported that a few weeds

named as Ageratum conyzoides appeared in

clean-weeded plot. Among the weeds which

appeared in natural weeds plot were Clibadia

surinamense, Clidemia herta, Chromolaena

odorata, Melastoma a$ne, and Imperata cylindri-

cal. Clibadia surinamense (woody species)

whose mean plant height reaches +-0 cm was

the dominant species in natural weedy plot.

Imperata cylindrica is a type of grass, which

covered about ,*� of the soil surface. Six

months after the experiment started, the weeds

in both weedy plots had already covered fully

the soil surface.

,. . Methodology

(+) USLE equation

The USLE (Wischmeier and Smith, +312),

which is used as the basis of calculation, has

the following formula :

A�R�K�L�S�C�P �Where : A : soil loss per unit area per year

R : rainfall and runo# factor

K : soil erodibility factor

L : slope length factor

S : slope steepness factor

C : crop management factor

P : support practice factor

(,) Rain erosivity (R)

Rain erosivity index was calculated using

the following equation of Wischmeier and

Smith (+312).

R�E�I-* �Where, R : rainfall erosivity index (MJ·mm·

h�+ ·ha�+)

E : total rainfall energy (MJ·ha�+)

I-* : the maximum -*-min rainfall in-

tensity (mm·h�+)

(-) Erodibility factor (K)

Soil erodibility factor was calculated using

the equation of Wischmeier, Johnson, and

Cross (+31+) as follows :

K�*.+-,�,.+M+.+.�+*�.��+,�a��-.,/�b�,��,./�c�-�� �

where, K : erodibility factor (t · h · MJ�+ ·

mm�+)

M : (�silt��fine sand)� (+**��clay)

a : organic matter content (�)b : the soil-structure code used in

soil classification

c : the profile-permeability class

: An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed Managements Using USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia 23

Soil structure code (b) was as follows :

(+) very fine granular, (,) fine granular, (-)

medium to coarse granular, and (.) platy,

blocky, or massive.

Permeability class (c) was classified as follows :

(+) rapid (�+,./ cm/hr), (,) moderate to rapid

(0.,/�+,./ cm/hr), (-) moderate (,.**�0.,/ cm/hr),

(.) slow to moderate (*./�,.** cm/hr), (/) slow

(*.+,/�*./ cm/hr), and (0) very slow (�*.+,/ cm/

hr).

Soil samples were taken for calculating

erodibility factor before rainy season. Particles

size analysis was determined by sieving and

hydrometer methods ; permeability was deter-

mined using falling head methods ; soil struc-

ture was determined directly in the field ; and

organic matter was measured by Walkey and

Black methods.

(.) Topographic factor (LS)

The topographic factor was calculated using

Wischmeier and Smith (+312) equation as

follows :

LS��l�,,.+�m�0/..+sin,q�../0sinq�*.*0/��

where, LS : topographic factor (dimensionless)

l : slope length (m)

q : angle of slope

m : constant, *./ (percent slope�/�),

*.. (../��percent slope�-./�),

*.- (-��percent slope�+�), *.,

(percent slope�+�)

(/) Co#ee and weeds coverage

a. Co#ee coverage

The coverage of co#ee canopy was calculat-

ed as the basis for calculating co#ee C-factor.

Ac�-.+.��Dc�,�, �Vc��At�N�Ac��At�+** �

where, Ac : co#ee canopy area (m,)

Dc : diameter of co#ee canopy (m)

Vc : co#ee coverage (�)

N : number of co#ee trees in experi-

mental plot

At : total area of experimental plot

(m,)

The canopy diameters of co#ee trees were

measured every two months, and in this analy-

sis, the average value during measurement

period of each rainy season was used. The

canopy diameter is one of the growth parame-

ters of co#ee trees ; hence it could be used for

C-factor determination during its growth.

b. Weeds coverage

After six months of the experiment, the

weeds in both weedy plots had already covered

the soil surface. Before weeds management

was done, the weeds spread under the canopy

of the co#ee. So for Paspalum and natural

weeds plots, the following equation was used

to calculate the weeds coverage (Vw) from the

second to fourth year of experiment.

Vwb�+** �Vwa��At�Taw��At�+** �Taw�-.+.��Dw�,�,�N �Vw��Vwb�Vwa��, �

Where, Vwb : weeds coverage before cutting (�)

Vwa : weeds coverage after cutting (�)

Dw : diameter of weeded area around

the co#ee tree (m)

Taw : total area, which has been weeded

around the co#ee tree (m,)

Vw : average weed coverage (�)

Because the number of co#ee trees in each

plot (N) was .* and the diameter of weeded area

(Dw) was +m, so the value of Vwa was 03�, and

average value of weeds coverage (Vw) was (+**

�03)/,�2/�In clean-weeded plot, a very few weeds

whose heights were less than / cm appeared (e.

g. Ageratum conyzoides). However, they were

cleaned as soon as possible they appeared, so

the weeds coverage (Vw) could be estimated to

be zero.

(0) Support practice P-factor

The P-factor was derived using the value

given by Wischmeier and Smith (+312). Be-

cause there was no practice management in

clean-weeded plot, the P-factor was +. The

P-factor for both weedy plots was also +, for the

first year and second year of measurement.

However, in the third year and fourth year of

measurement, there was a change in micro

slope gradient between the co#ee rows along

�� ��� � 3-� �,**-�24

the slope due to the farmer activities such as

weeds management. A single terrace between

two rows of co#ee trees was developed with

slope gradient of -�2�, so the P-factor for the

weedy plots was *./ for the third and fourth

year of experiment.

(1) Estimation of crop and management

factor

The crop management factor was calculated

based on the field condition, especially co#ee

and weed coverage. Because C-factor is very

critical value, we use two approaches in

determining the C-factor as follows.

a. C-factor derived from similar condition

The combination of ground cover (weeds

coverage) and vegetative canopy (co#ee cover-

age) was considered in determining the C-

factor. Since there were no information and

results about C-factor of co#ee and weeds com-

bination, the C-factor was derived from similar

condition. The table given by Wischmeier and

Smith (+312) for determination of C-factor for

pasture, range, and idle land was matched for

this purpose, because it encounters the percent-

age of groundcover as well as the percentage of

vegetative canopy. For convenience, the C-

factor derived from this table was called Ct.

b. Equivalent C-factor

Generally, the calculation of C-factor for var-

ious combinations of crops was done by

weighted average methods. In this method,

every single C-factor was multiplied by the

proportion of the area that every crop

occupied, and then the C-factor was the sum of

every single C-factors. However, this method

could be applied successfully if every single

crop could be clearly defined separately. In

case of co#ee trees, this method is di$cult to

be applied, because the weeds and the co#ee

trees were located side by side from upper

slope to down slope, so erosion from upper

slope will be reduced and entrapped by the

weeds. To encounter this problem, new equa-

tion is proposed to estimate the C-factor of

weeds and co#ee combination. C-factor

derived from this equation was designed as Ce.

The derivation of this formula is described in

Appendix.

Ce���+**�Vw��+**�Cc+�m�Vw�+**�Cw

+�m�m

��where, Cc : single co#ee crop factor

Cw : single weed crop factor

Ce : equivalent C-factor

m : constant shown in equation (.)

The co#ee and weeds single C-factor used in

equation (++) was derived from the research

results in Indonesia. The C-factor for co#ee in

good coverage was *., (Arsyad, +323). Because

of no information about the co#ee C-factor in

bad coverage, we assumed that it was similar

to C-factor for rubber and tea crop with bad

coverage. Those C-factor values were *.2 for

rubber and *./ for tea as well as mixed-garden

with medium coverage (Hammer, +32+).

The weeds single C-factor for Paspalum con-

jugatum was assumed to be similar with Bede

grass. There were two values of C-factor for

Bede grass, *.,2 and *.**, (Utomo, +323). The

value *.,2 was applied for the first year of

experiment, because the root system of

Paspalum as well as the coverage was not so

dense, and the value of *.**, was applied from

the second year of experiment.

For natural weeds, the value *.- was used for

the first year, assumed to be similar to shrubs

(Hammer, +32+) and *.*,+ from the second year

which assumed to be similar to permanent

alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica) (Utomo, +323).

(2) Measured C-factor

The measured C-factor was calculated based

on USLE equation as follows :

Cm�A��R�K�L�S�P� ��where, Cm : measured C-factor of each treat-

ment

The value of Cm was calculated yearly and a

single Cm factor for each treatment was found

by averaging four years measurement. The

value of A was obtained from the measurement

in each plot ; R, K, L, S values were calculated

based on the observation data, and P was taken

from table based on the field conditions.

: An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed Managements Using USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia 25

-. Results and Discussion

-. + Erodibility factor

The result of soil erodibility calculation is

presented in Table ,.

The average value of erodibility factors for

clean-weeded plot is *.**3 t · h · MJ�+ · mm�+

followed by natural weeds plot (*.**1 t · h · MJ�+

· mm�+) and Paspalum plot (*.**1 t · h · MJ�+ ·

mm�+). Comparing with the values of the other

soils in Lampung, these values were smaller.

Using the same method, Susanto (+33,) found

the values of erodibility between *.*,.�*.*/, t ·

h · MJ�+ · mm�+ in some Red Acid Soils (Ultisol)

which were higher than the values found in

this experiment due to lower permeability.

-. , Weeds and Co#ee Coverage

The results of weeds and co#ee coverage are

presented in Table -. After the second year of

experimental period, the weeds in weedy plots

had already covered the soil surface with an

average value as much as 2/� coverage.

About +/� of the plots were maintained bare

for co#ee areas. In the case of clean-weeded

plot, the weeds were cleared by hand as soon as

they appeared.

In the second year, competition between

weeds and co#ee suppressed the co#ee growth

in weedy plots, so the co#ee coverage in both

weedy plots was around /�, whereas in clean-

weeded plot was ,-�. The competition was

severe in natural weeds plot due to the exist-

ence of Clibadia surinamense whose height

could be , m.

Table , E#ects of di#erent weeds management under co#ee tree on erodibility index

Treatment Year silt�veryfine sand

(�)

Organicmatter (�)

Codestructure

Codepermeability

K(t · h · MJ�+ · mm�+)

Clean-weeded

Plot

+st

,nd

-rd

.th

Ave

./

./

./

./

-41

-4-

-4-

-40

.

.

.

.

,

+

+

,

*4*+*

*4**1

*4**1

*4*++

*4**3

PaspalumPlot

+st

,nd

-rd

.th

Ave

.-

.-

.-

.-

04+

.41

.43

04-

.

.

.

.

+

+

+

,

*4**/

*4**0

*4**0

*4**3

*4**1

Naturalweeds

Plot

+st

,nd

-rd

.th

Ave

./

./

./

./

/4/

-4*

/4,

.40

.

.

.

.

+

+

+

+

*4**0

*4**2

*4**0

*4**1

*4**1

Table - Co#ee and weeds coverage

Treatment Weeds coverage (�) Co#ee coverage (�)

+st ,nd -rd .th +st ,nd -rd .th

Clean-weeded plot

Paspalum plot

Natural weeds plot

+3

,0

,/

*

2/

2/

*

2/

2/

*

2/

2/

+4-

+4-

+4-

,-4,

/4*

.4-

+**4*

14+

,41

3,4+

,*42

+141

����� 3-� �,**- 26

In the fourth year, the co#ee coverage was

,+� in Paspalum plot, which means that co#ee

canopy covered the weeded area (about +/� of

the total area) and overlapped some part of

weeds area. This situation also occurred in

natural weeds plot whose co#ee coverage was

+2�. In case of clean-weeded plot, the co#ee

canopy had already covered the erosion plot

since the third year, and in the fourth year the

co#ee coverage decreased because the co#ee

tree had been harvested, and some of the

branches were broken.

-. - Estimation of Crop factor

(+) C-factor derived from similar condition

In the first year, the co#ee coverage was very

small since there was no appreciable canopy,

thus the C-factor was mainly determined by

weeds coverage. The existing weeds in clean-

weeded plot and Paspalum plot were in contact

with the soil surface, covering about +3��,0�,so the C-factor value was *.,*. On the other

hand, the natural weeds which were mostly

herbaceous plants, covered about ,/�, and theC-factor value was *.,.. From the second year

to the fourth year, the weeds coverage in clean-

weeded plot was zero, thus the C-factor was

determined only by the co#ee coverage. In the

second year, the height of co#ee tree was less

than *.3+m with coverage ,-�, so the C-factorwas *.-0. The C-factors for the third and fourth

year were *.,2.

For Paspalum plot, the C-factor from the

second to the fourth year was *.*+- because the

weeds coverage reached 2/� and the co#ee

coverage was less than ,/�. So the C-factor

was mainly determined by the weeds coverage.

Using the same way explained above, the C-

factor for natural weeds plot was *.*.+ from the

second to the fourth year. The value of C-

factor derived from table given by Wischmeier

and Smith are listed in Table ..

(,) Equivalent C-factor method

The values of some single C-factors for co#ee

and weeds used in this analysis are listed in

Table /. The best C-factor for co#ee with good

coverage was *.,, and the maximum value of

C-factor was *.2 for co#ee with poor coverage.

Table . Combination C-factor (Ct) for co#ee

and weeds based on table given by Wischmeier

and Smith (+312)

Treatment +st ,nd -rd .th

Clean-weeded plot

Paspalum plot

Natural weeds plot

*4,*

*4,*

*4,.

*4-0

*4*+-

*4*.+

*4,2

*4*+-

*4*.+

*4,2

*4*+-

*4*.+

Table / Calculation of equivalent C-factor (Ce) for co#ee and weeds

combination

Treatment Year C-factorfor co#ee

Cc

C-factor forweedsCw

Coverageof weedsVw (�)

EquivalentC-factor

Ce

Clean-weededPlot

+st

,nd

-rd

.th

*42

*4/

*4,

*4,

*4,2

*

*

*

+3

*

*

*

*41-*

*4/**

*4,**

*4,**

PaspalumPlot

+st

,nd

-rd

.th

*42

*4/

*4-

*4,

*4,2

*4**,

*4**,

*4**,

,0

2/

2/

2/

*41*-

*4+3.

*4++0

*4*11

Natural weedsPlot

+st

,nd

-rd

.th

*42

*4/

*4/

*4,

*4-

*4*,+

*4*,+

*4*,+

,/

2/

2/

2/

*41*3

*4+3/

*4+3/

*4*2*

�� : An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed Managements Using USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia 27

The value of *., was applied if the co#ee area

was totally covered by co#ee canopy. This

value was achieved in clean-weeded plot in the

third and fourth year. And in case of weedy

plots, it was in the fourth year due to the fact

that the weeded area (+/� of total area) in both

weedy plots was totally covered by co#ee

canopy. The maximum value *.2 was applied

when the canopy coverage of co#ee was less

than ,/�. The results of equivalent C-factor

calculated using equation (++) are presented in

Table /.

In the first year of experiment, the C-factor

value was almost the same in all treatment,

about *.1. The lowest C-factor was achieved in

co#ee covered by Paspalum, *.*11 that was

reached in the fourth year of experiment.

-. . Soil loss prediction by USLE method

and soil loss measurement

Soil loss prediction using the USLE method

with two values of C-factor is presented in

Table 0. The average soil loss predicted by

USLE using Ct was lower than using Ce. Using

Ct, the average of predicted soil loss was +*2.3

t/ha, 1.1 t/ha and +..+t/ha for clean-weeded

plot, Paspalum plot and natural weeds plot,

respectively, and were 3�,. times higher than

the measured soil loss. Using Ce, the average

soil loss predicted were +,, t/ha, -3./ t/ha and

.2.2 t/ha for clean-weeded plot, Paspalum plot

and natural weeds plot, respectively, which

were also +*�2+ times higher than that meas-

ured.

The problem related to the using of C-factor

in equivalent method is the limitation of avail-

able C-factor value. For a particular crop, the

value of C-factor must be constant. However,

there is a big di#erence among values of C-

factor for particular crop from hundreds of

erosion plot experiments in Indonesia. For

example, the range of C-factor values, *.-3 to

*.3. and *.+0 to *.3-* were found for soybean

and mungbean respectively, and for alang-

alang grass (imperata cylindrica) which rela-

tively has the same growth performance, the

C-factor ranged from *.+* to *.2. (Utomo, +323).

Although the USLE estimation using Ct

values at Paspalum and natural weeds plots

are ++ and ,. times greater than the soil loss

measurement, the predicted values are still ac-

ceptable because its average value was lower

than the soil loss tolerance in Indonesia, which

was ,,.. t/ha/year according to Utomo (+33.)

and ,/�-1 t/ha/year according to Manik et al.

(+331).

The average value of the soil loss estimation

using USLE in each treatment was not as high

as it has been found in some Indonesian litera-

tures. Soil loss estimation using USLE in Indo-

nesia was usually applied on watershed scale,

not in a plot scale. In Lampung, Susanto (+33,)

found soil loss of about 2-�,0* t/ha/year for

rain-fed agriculture/garden in Way Kandis wa-

tershed. Alkohozie et al. (+33,) found -/. and

-+. t/ha/year for garden and rain-fed agricul-

ture in upper Way Seputih watershed.

Nugroho et al. (+33+) found the average soil loss

of -**�3** t/ha/year for upper Tulang Bawang

Table 0 Soil losses measured and predicted by USLE

No Year

RainErosivity(MJ·mm·ha�+ ·h�+)

Soil loss from each treatment (ton/ha)

Clean-weeded plot Paspalum plot Natural weeds plot

Measurement

Ct-factor

Ce-factor

Measurement

Ct-factor

Ce-factor

Measurement

Ct-factor

Ce-factor

+

,

-

.

+st

,nd

-rd

.th

Ave.

-12-

/*+3

+/+2.

3*./

242-

,,41-

++4.+

.413

++43.

.-4-

1-4-

+1,4/

+.042

+*243

+/24*

+*+42

+,-4,

+*.42

+,,4*

,41-

*4*-

*

*

*403

,,4/

,4,

-4-

,42

141

134*

--4+

,34-

+04.

-34/

+4/.

*4+0

*403

*

*40*

-*4,

240

+*42

042

+.4+

234.

.+4+

/+4/

+-4.

.242

������ � 3- ,**-�28

watershed.

However, some researches in Indonesia

showed that the soil loss from co#ee areas was

very low. Gintings (+32,) reported that the soil

loss from +-year old Robusta co#ee with /3�0-� slope gradient was +.3. t/ha (measured

from May to October) and the soil loss from -

-years old co#ee with slope gradient of 0,�00�measured from May to October was +./1 t/ha.

Soil loss from +0-years old co#ee with slope of

.0�.3� measured during almost one year

(January-October) was ,../ t/ha. Studies were

made from December +320 to June +321 by

Pudjiharta and Pramono (+322) under +/-yr-old

co#ee, corresponding results were *.*, t/ha on

a slope of ,*�,-� with undergrowth, and *.+,

t/ha on a slope of ..+� without undergrowth.

Gintings (+32,) also found that the soil loss

from virgin forest with //�0/� slope gradient

in Sumber Jaya from January to October +32*

was *./3 t/ha. Since the soil loss from co#ee

areas in Indonesia was very small, a little bit

higher than soil loss from virgin forest areas

(Gintings, +32,), the co#ee C-factor should be a

little bit higher than forest C-factor.

The above discussion has proved that the

accuracy of soil loss prediction by USLE is

mostly determined by the selection of appro-

priate value of C-factor. Since there was no

exact information of co#ee C-factor in Indone-

sia, approximation value using similar crop (as

it was done in equivalent C-factor) or similar

condition might be done with various results.

-. / Measured C-factor

The measured C-factor (Cm) of each treat-

ment is shown in Table 1. The values of Cm

were very low compared to the existing C-

factor used in Indonesia which usually consid-

ered as *.,. The average value of Cm in each

treatment was *.*./ for co#ee in clean weeded

treatment, *.**0 for co#ee with Paspalum and

*.**. for co#ee in natural weeds. The co#ee

C-factor found in this experiment was almost

same with the C-factor for Brachiara grass (*.*,

�*.**,), primary forest (*.**+�*.**/) (Sinukaban,

+32/), and undisturbed forest (*.***+�*.**3)

(Wischmeier and Smith, +312). The value of *.,

usually used in Indonesia was adopted from

the values of co#ee C-factor with cover crop in

West Africa as compiled by Roose (+311), where

the value of co#ee C-factor ranged from *.+ to

*.-. The low value of C-co#ee factor found in

this experiment was supported by the fact in

previous discussion that the soil loss from

co#ee areas in Indonesia was very low. Proba-

bly, the di#erent managements in co#ee plan-

tation had caused that the values of C-factor

found in this experiment were di#erent from

C-factor values of “text book”. In Indonesia,

several researchers had found the di#erent

values of C-factor for certain plant. Utomo

(+323) showed that there were four C-factor

values for soybean which were resulted from

soil erosion plot experiment : *.+0, *..1, *.3-, and

*.03*, due to di#erent managements. In case of

co#ee tree in this experiment, weeding was

done by taking the weeds using hand for clean-

weeded co#ee. As a result, the soil was

minimally destroyed, hence the soil erosion

became small. In addition to this, the litter

originated from the co#ee leaves was never

taken out from the plot.

As shown in Table -, the percentage of

weeds coverage in clean-weeded co#ee plot

was zero from the second until the fourth year

of experiment, hence the C-factor was totally

determined by the coverage of the co#ee. For

clean weeded co#ee (as shown in Table 1), the

maximum value of Cm was *.+++1 when the

co#ee coverage reached ,-�, and the mini-

mum value was *.**3+ when the coverage

reached 3,�. Since the C-value for bare soil is+, and the minimum value of C-factor is *.**3+,

a graph could be made for estimating the co#ee

C-value for various co#ee coverage with clean-

weeded management, using the measured

co#ee C-factors as listed in Table 1. The result

is shown in Fig. +.

The estimation of the C-factor for co#ee with

ground coverage could be made by introducing

the concept of C-subfactor. The concept of

C-subfactor which had been discussed by

�� : An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed Managements Using USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia 29

Wischmeier and Simth (+312) as well as

Dissmeyer and Foster (+32+) could be applied

by considering the e#ect of weeds as the sub-

factor. So, the co#ee C-factor (Cc) for various

ground covers can be estimated as following

equation :

Cc�Cb�Cs ��Cc : co#ee C-factor with ground cover-

age

Cs : subfactor

Cb : co#ee C-factor without ground

coverage

In clean-weeded co#ee, the Cc will be only

influenced by Cb, so the value of subfactor Cs

will be + or in other word the ground (weeds)

coverage is *�. On the other hand, if the

ground (weeds) coverage is +**�, the Cc will be

* because the soil loss is *, so the Cs factor will

be *. Based on equation (+-), the value of Cs

subfactor in this experiment could be calculat-

ed by the following equation :

Cs�Cw�Cb ��where, Cs : weeds C-subfactor

Cb : measuring co#ee C-factor at clean-

weeded plot (co#ee in bare condi-

tion)

Cw : measuring co#ee C-factor at both

the Paspalum and natural weeds

plots

Based on the values in Table 1 (Cw value),

Table - (weeds coverage value), and Fig. + (Cb

value), the Cs value for Paspalum and natural

weeds could be calculated for various coverage

of co#ee tree using equation (+.) and the

results were tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2 showed that with weeds coverage of

,/�, the C-subfactor was very low, less than

*.*-, and the C-subfactor value was almost zero

when the weeds coverage became 2/�. In

conclusion, applying ,/� of ground coverage

is enough for controlling soil loss in co#ee

areas, so it is not necessary for covering the

whole soil surface with weeds.

.. Conclusion

Evaluation of co#ee crop factor (C) as a part

of USLE was done on erosion plot with gradi-

ent -*� in humid tropical areas of Indonesia.

The co#ee C-factors for USLE calculation were

estimated by deriving from the available table

given by Wischmeier and Smith (+312) and

using new concept of equivalent C-factor. The

results showed that the values of estimated

co#ee C-factor derived from the table were

*.*+-�*.,2, while the values of equivalent C-

factor were in the range of *.*11�*.1-, and as a

result, the soil loss estimated was higher when

equivalent C-factor was used. Using Ct, the

average soil loss was +*2.3, 1.1 and +..+ t/ha/

year for clean-weeded plot, Paspalum plot and

natural weeds plot respectively, which was 3�,. times greater than the soil loss measure-

Table 1 Measured C-factor

Treatment +st ,nd -rd .th Average

Clean-weeded plot

Paspalum plot

Natural weeds plot

*4*.*2

*4*,.-

*4*+,,

*4+++1

*4***,

*4***2

*4*+2/

*4****

*4**,0

*4**3+

*4****

*4****

*4*./*

*4**0+

*4**-3

Fig. + Relationship between co#ee C-factor

(Cb) and co#ee coverage.

������ 3- �,**-�30

ment. However, the predicted value was still

acceptable and reasonable, because it was

lower than the soil loss tolerance.

The measured value of co#ee C-factor was

*.*./, *.**0, and *.**. for clean- weeded co#ee,

Paspalum plot and natural weeds plot, respec-

tively which were lower than the value (*.,)

usually used in Indonesia. By considering the

e#ect of weeds as the subfactor (Cs), the value

of co#ee C-factor (Cc) with various coverage of

weed can be estimated using the following

equation :

Cc�Cb�Cs

Where Cb could be estimated from the graph

which was derived from this experiment.

Acknoledgments

Appreciation is extended to Ministry of Edu-

cation, Culture, and Sport of Japan, for funding

this research.

Reference

Abujamin, S., Adi, A. and Kurnia, U. (+32-) : Perma-

nent grass strip as one of soil conservation

methods, Soil and Fertilizer Research News,

Center for Soil Research, Ministry of Agricul-

ture, Indonesia, + : +0�,* (in Indonesian).

Afandi, Manik, T.K., Rosadi, B., Utomo, M., Senge,

M., Adachi, T. and Oki, Y. (,**,) : Soil erosion

under co#ee trees with di#erent weed man-

agement in humid tropical hilly area of

Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia, J. of Jap-

anese Society of Soil Physics, 3+ : -�+..

Alkhozie, Manik, K.E.S. and Afandi (+33,) : Soil loss

estimation using USLE, Experimental Journal

of Faculty of Agiculture of Lampung Universi-

ty V (.) : ,/,-�,/-- (in Indonesian).

Arsyad, S. (+323) : Soil and water conservation, IPB

Press, Bogor. (in Indonesian).

Dissmeyer, G.E. and Foster, G.R. (+32+) : Estimating

the cover management factor (C) in the Uni-

versal Soil Loss Equation for forest condition,

J. of Soil and Water Conservation, -0 (.) : ,-/�,.*.

Foster, G.R., McCool, D.K., Renard, K.G. and

Moldenhauer. W.C. (+32+) : Conversion of the

universal soil loss equation to SI metric units.

J. of Soil and Water Conservation, -0 (0) : -//�-/3.

Gintings, A.G. (+32,) : Surface runo# and soil ero-

sion under co#ee plantation and natural forest

at Sumber Jaya-North Lampung, Forest Re-

search Institute, Ministry of Agriculture Indo-

nesia, Report No.-33 (in Indonesian).

Hammer, W.I. (+32+) : Second Soil Conservation

Consultant Report, Note No. +*, Centre for Soil

Research, Bogor, Indonesia : 32.

Lal, R. (,***) : Physical management of the tropics,

Soil Science, +0/ (-) : +3+�,*1.

Manik, K.E.S., Susanto, K.S. and Afandi (+331) : Es-

timation of allowable soil loss in two dominant

soil in Lampung, J. of Tropical Soils II (.) : 33�+*0. (in Indonesian).

Nugroho, S.G., Utomo, M., Haryono, N., Damai, A.A.,

Muludi, K., Bakri, S. and Andi. (+33+) : Estima-

tion of runo#, erosion, and sedimentation of

Tulang Bawang watershed, A Database,

Report of Research Institute of Lampung Uni-

versity : ,/ (in Indonesian).

Pudjiharta, A.G. and Pramono, I.B. (+322) : Runo#

and soil erosion under natural forest stands

and co#ee plantations at Tabanan, West Bali,

Forest Research Bulletin .32 : +�2. (in Indone-

Table 2 The estimated value of weed subfactor (Cs) in co#ee garden

Weeds type Year Coverageof weeds (�)

Coverageof co#ee (�)

Cc Cb*� Cs

Paspalumconjugatum

+

,

-

.

,0

2/

2/

2/

+4-

/4*

14+

,*42

*4*,.-

*4***,

*4****

*4****

*433

*43.

*40*

*4+-

*4*,./

*4***,

*4****

*4****

Naturalweeds

+

,

-

.

,/

2/

2/

2/

+4-

.4-

,41

+141

*4*+,,

*4***2

*4**,0

*4****

*433

*411

*431

*4+3

*4*+,-

*4**+*

*4**,1

*4****

*� The value of Cb is taken from Fig. + with each coverage of co#ee tree.

�� : An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed Managements Using USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia 31

sian).

Risse, L.M., Nearing, M.A., Nicks, A.D. and Laflen, J.

M. (+33-) : Error measurement in the Universal

Soil Loss Equation. Soil Sci. Am. J., /1 : 2,/�2--.

Roose, E. (+311) : Use of the universal soil loss equa-

tion to predict erosion in West Africa, Proc. of

the National Conference, Soil Erosion,

Predicrion, and Control, Soil Conservation So-

ciety of America, Ankeney, Iowa : +.-�+/+.

Sinukaban, N. (+32/) : Soil and water conservation

in transmigration areas, Main Manual, Minis-

try of Transmigration, Indonesia. (in Indone-

sian).

Sriyani, N., Suprapto, H., Susanto, H., Lubis, A.T.

and Oki, Y. (+333) : Weeds population dynam-

ics in co#ee plantation managed by di#erent

soil conservation techniques. Proc. of Interna-

tional Seminar, Toward Sustainable Agricul-

ture in Humid Tropics Facing ,+st Century,

Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, September ,1�,2

: /+-�/,*.

Susanto, K.S. (+33,) : Characteristic of Way Kandis

sub-catchment in South Lampung and

Lampung city, Thesis Post Graduate Program,

Bogor Agricultural University. Bogor. (in Indo-

nesian).

Utomo, W.H. (+323) : Soil conservation in Indone-

sia, A Record and Analysis, Rajawali Press,

Jakarta. (in Indonesian).

Utomo, W.H. (+33.) : Erosion and soil conservation,

IKIP Malang Press, Malang (in Indonesian).

Wischmeier, W.H., Johnson, C.B. and Cross, B.V.

(+31+) : A soil erodibility nomograph for farm-

land and construction sites, J. of Soil and

Water Conservation, ,* : +/*�+/+.

Wischmeier, W.H. (+310) : Use and misuse of the

universal soil loss equation, J. of Soil and

Water Conservation, -+ (+) : /�3.

Wishmeier, W.H. and Smith, D.D. (+312) : Predicting

rainfall erosion losses : A Guide to Conserva-

tion Planning, USDA Agricultural Handbook

No./-1 : /1.

Appendix

Consider the equivalent C-factor of the slope

as shown in Fig. ,. This slope consists of three

sub-slopes where only the crop management

factors are di#erent. And soil loss from each

sub-slope could be estimated by USLE equa-

tion.

Soil loss (A) is expressed in the following

equation as the function of slope length (L) and

crop management factor (C) by combining the

equations (+) and (.).

A�a�C�Lm

a�R�K�P��+�,,.+�m�0/..+sin,q

�../0sinq�*.*0/�If equivalent C-factor of slope I and II is

designed as Ce,, soil loss from these slopes (A,)

is expressed by the following equation.

A,�aCe,L,m

And soil loss from slope I (A+) is expressed as

follows.

A+�a�C+�l+m

If the slope I has the same C-factor of slope II

(C,), soil loss (A+) is expressed by following

equation.

A+�a�C,�l+�m

In this case, the length of slope I must be

changed to l+� calculated by the following equa-

tion.

l+���C+�C,�+�ml+

Soil loss from slope II (A,) is expressed by the

following equation.

A,�a�C,�L,�m�a�C,��l,�l+��m

�a�C,�l,��C+�C,�+�ml+�m

�a�Ce,L,m

Equivalent C-factor (Ce,) is expressed as

follows.

Ce,�C,�l,�L,��C+�C,�+�m�l+�L,��m

��C,+�m�l,�L,��C+

+�m�l+�L,��m

By the same procedure, equivalent C-factor of

the slope I to II (Ce-) can be derived as follows.

Ce-��C-+�m�l-�L-��Ce,

+�m�L,�L-��m

��C-+�m�l-�L-��C,

+�m�l,�L-��C++�m�l+�

L-��m

here, the coverage of the crop of slope I (V+)

Fig. , Equivalent C-factor of the slope.

���� 3-� �,**-�32

could be expressed as follows.

V+�l+�L-

Finally, equivalent C-factor of slope I to III (Ce-)

can be expressed by the function of single crop

factor of each slope and the coverage of each

crop.

Ce-��C-+�mV-�C,

+�mV,�C++�mV+�m

����������� ����USLE���������

��������� !"#�#�$�%&'()*+����,-./�

����*��� � ���� ���*����� ��*����� ���*� !"#**�$�%&***�' �(***

*)�*�+,-,.**/0+,-,.

***12+,34�5,.

0 1

�678��9���)�)�*�:;<=>?�@:ABCBDEFGHI USLEJ:KLM�NO �CP� EQGHRSTUV WXYZI �@[�:\]^_`a]TUABCBD �_`a]Y�I�bcdLeTH\]f Paspalum conjugatumg@[�^bcTUABCBD �PaspulumY�I�hidj:\]g@[�^bcTUABCBD �hi\]Y� gklV \]:M�Z ,mnE +o:�pgqGI _`a]YgZ@[�:\]^_`EarTI PaspulumYehi\]YgZABCBstu:vw +m:xu^a]TUV ABCB:KLM�NO^y: ,f�:z�g{|TUV ��}TUdjbc~�^��l�:KLM�NO^Glz� �Ct� e ���:ABCB:KLM�NOE��GH�|TU�SKLM�NO^Glz� �Ce� gklV CtP^GH����^���le��P: 3�,.�e��U:E�THI Ce^GU����:��PZ��P: +*�2+�e��UV Ct

PE�l����:��PZ PaspulumYg 3.1 t�ha�yearI hi\]Yg +..+ t�ha�yeargk�I�: �678�:��g����UABCBD��:����ZO� t�ha��:OP��G:E�THI  ��e¡¢�le£¤E¥��Pgk�I G¦�§¨�����^©olP^ªTUV ��EI �XE�l��P��«¬UABCBD:KLM�NOZI _`a]Yg *.*./I PaspulumYg*.**0I hi\]YgZ *.**.e��I G¦�§ �678�g­¤G��HGlABCB:KLM�NO:OP �*.,� ��§¥��OP^ªTUV ��g®��UABCB:KLNO �Cb� e\]:¯°^[�NO �Cs� :±²z^³´TI \]E�lbc~�©:ABCBDEFµlKLM�NO Cc:�|J �Cc�Cb�Cs� ^ªTUV

2�3�� : ����I ABCBI ¶�·I USLEJI KLM�NO

¸¹�º» : ,**,� 3º +1»¸��º» : ,**-� /º , »

�¼ : An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed Managements Using USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia 33

�����������

����*��� �*���*

Comparison of the Methods Measuring of Soil Thermal Conductivity

Hidetoshi MOCHIZUKI*, Iwao SAKAGUCHI* and Mitsuhiro INOUE*

Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, +-3* Hamasaka, Tottori 02*�***+, Japan

Abstract

We measured thermal conductivity of Tottori dune sand and water using four methods, single

heat probe (SPM), twin heat probe (TPM), dual heat probe (DPM), and Decagon probe (KDM). The

measured values were compared. The thermal conductivity values measured with SPM and

DPM are similar, and those with TPM and KDM are also similar. The thermal conductivity of

water measured with KDM was as high as the value reported in literature, on the other hand the

values obtained using SPM and DPM were higher than the reported data. As a result, KDM and

TPM are recommended to measure soil thermal conductivity.

Key words : thermal conductivity, single heat probe method, twin heat probe method, dual heat

probe method, Decagon probe method

+� � � � �

� ������ ��� ����������� ���� Single Heat Probe��de Vries and Peck, +3/2 ;

Taylor and Jackson, +320 ; Shiozawa and Campbell,

+33* ; !"�+33/#$Twin Heat Probe��Kasubuchi,+311 ; %�� +32,#� Dual Heat Probe� �Campbell et

al., +33+ ; Bristow et al., +33. a ; Bristow et al., +33.b ;

Bristow et al., +33/ ; Ren et al., +333 ;&'"�,**,#()*+,�-�./01�234.� 567������89:�-����;�<=;>?@�A(3BBristowet al. �+33.b# �� CDE����8 Single Heat Probe� �FG� SP�# H Dual Heat Probe� �FG� DP�#8I32��;� �J����;>����.KL6MN4�H8O;>B�>�DP��������P("QRS�T�$�UVWX85Y����Z4>[� DP�.K\]�>����^4H_�`a>B&'" �,**,#�� de Vriesbcd �de Vries, +30-# 8I3>e�f8ghH;2� ijk�� lm��nH�� E��RS�T�H����8 SP�H DP�8I32��;�o�pq8rs;>B o�_t� DP��� -+�uv�.^4.� )�uv�8I32nwx_t�yZ(p

.(3�H8O;>B �>� SP�8I34H� z� lm�{�|��K\}|;>~������8�a$N3>[� ����.����1�4�H8O;>B F�K�(����.�����8I329:�-��K4��_t8<=;>?@�^4n��� ����.�����8I32������8rs;>����>"(3B o��� �?@��� SP�� Twin Heat Probe��FG� TP�#� DP�� ����1�>������KD, �Decagon��# 8I3> Decagon Probe� �FG� KD�# 8�I;� ��"�-��K�2� ��E�E�����8��;� <=;>B �>� ����.���^4l �+� ¡¢d#�����n��;� ������8rs;>B

,� � �

,�+ � ��������H;2iLI3"�234 SP��

TP�� DP�H����1�>���8I3> KD�� .+�-�8I32� £ +�¤¥�O1�>-��7������8��;>B�>�¦��� -§¨©;>B�?@��ªN«Z¬­�£ +�®¯�­�O;>BDP��uv��� �n°±(6²�8�I;>B

*��y³D´µ?@¶·¸¹ º02*�***+ ���»� +-3*

��� : ����� Single Heat Probe�� Twin Heat Probe�� Dual Heat Probe�� Decagon Probe�

J. Jpn. Soc. Soil Phys.

� ��¼�No. 3-, p. .1�/* �,**-�

�����

,�, ���������� �+32-� ����� ����������������������� ����� !"�#$%�&'�( )*+, +.//-*.*+Mgm.-/( ��0123456789 �:; .0mm( <= 0/mm� �>���� ?@�A#B C)( *.*+, *.*,, *.*., *.*0, *.*2, *.+*,

*.+/, *.,*kgkg.+/D�� E�( FGHI�JK/D�+�LMN4 �*.0*1,Wm.+K.+� O������� P��� ��QR)*STUVWXY:� ,/Z�[\��]^_/`���

-�

.a�bc/d\��������FGHI�e +�f��� C)��ghE/�P#$i/( SPcj DP

c( TPcj KDc klkm�d\n�f��� E�( SPcj DPc ( TPco KDc�pq( <�d\n�f��� TPcj KDc�d\n P#$i/��rs�f���( SPc�d\n ( A#B *.*/�*.+/

kgkg.+/ ( DPc�d\n�tO<�n�f���u ,� .bc��� +�LMN4�FGHI�d\njvwn�f��� d\n ( SPcxDPcxvwnxKDc�y/D��� KDc�d\n�vwn�zOm�n�f��� TPc�a� ( {|�}� +�LMN4j���~( d\n ������/( u ,� f�����

.� � �

SPcj DPc�d\n�m�n�f���j (

Bristow et al. �+33.b� o��� �,**,� ��������O�/D�� E�( ��� �,**,� ���#$i/ SPc�FGHI�������j���( �TU/ �#$ij����� �A#B *.*/�*.+/kgkg.+� /(SPc�d\n� DPc�d\n������ ���� ��� �,**,� j�����/D�� E�( �#$i/ ( TPcj KDc�d\nj SPcj DPc�d\

�+ �TU/0�����FGHId\cjvwTable + Measuring Methods of Soil Thermal Conductivity, and References

d\c v w � �

Single Heat Probec �SPc� Shiozawa and Campbell (+33*) �F�� : /3./ ¡¢Y£¤; : +mm

¡¢Y£¥= : 0*mm

¦§c : ¨©ªz�«¬cTwin Heat Probec �TPc� Kasubuchi (+311) {|�} : +�LMN4

�*.0*1,W�mK��F�� : /3./ SPcj­r¡¢Y£®0

Dual Heat Probec �DPc� Bristow et al. (+33. a) �F�� : 2 ¡¢Y£¤; : +mm

¡¢Y£¥= : .*mm

¡¢Y£�¯ : 0mm

¦§c : r°cDecagon Probec �KDc� Decagon Devices, Inc., (,**+) ±²³

d\�� : +/* 

��+ ´��bc���������FGHIFig. + Thermal Conductivity of Tottori Dune

Sand Measured by Four Methods.

���� � µ 3-¶ �,**-�48

�������� SP�� DP�� ������������������������� ���!�" �#� ,�!�$�%� KD�� +�&'()������*��+ ��!�$$, KD����� -�.�/ �0123�# 4$ KD�� TP������5����6 "� 78�!�$��92 TP��: "���������������0123�#; +�!�$�%� SP�� DP� TP�� KD��<="/ ����!�$��92 SP�� DP� �����>��?�" �@A.�!BC3�#Kasubuchi D+311E SP� F�GHI���J�KLMNLOPCQ"�����RS��� ��J� 0 C3" T UVWXYZ��[$��\W]�^_��$, �����>��?����" �# DP��: "�`�������>��?�" ��0123�#�34��ab�cde��f��� gh�����������" KD�� TP��i�" ��0123�# KD� ��j�/?�k�� �����9:l��k�# 4$ TP� mWnVoWTp�qr�s�t[" �ud� KD��������123�� ��v�wx����k�#

/� � � � �

gh�����������"�y23� SP�TP� DP�� �+z�C3$��j�� $ KD��� "{|}~}� +�&'()���������$# ��ab SP�� DP� �����/,����� TP�� KD����� ���������+ ��!�# ��$, TP�� KD��gh�����������"i�" ��0123�#

� �

Single Heat Probe� KD, ������������������������92���"����[

$# ��� ��"��8�4�#

� �

Bristow, K.L., Kluitenberg, G. J. and Horton, R. (+33.

a) : Measurement of Soil Thermal Properties

with a Dual-Probe Heat-Pulse Technique. Soil

Sci. Soc. Am. J., /2 : +,22�+,3..

Bristow, K.L., White, R.D. and Kluitenberg, G. J. (+33.

b) : Comparison of Single and Dual Probes for

Measuring Soil Thermal Properties with Tran-

sient Heating. Aust. J. Soil Res., -, : ..1�.0..

Bristow, K.L., Bilskie, J.R., Kluitenberg, G. J. and

Horton, R. (+33/) : Comparison of Techniques for

Extracting Soil Thermal Properties from Dual-

Probe Heat-Pulse Data. Soil Sci., +0* (+) : +�1.

Campbell, G.S., Calissendor#, C. and Williams, J.H.

(+33+) : Probe for Measuring Soil Specific Heat

Using a Heat-Pulse Method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,

// : ,3+�,3-.

Kasubuchi, T. (+311) : Twin Transient-State

Cylindrical-Probe Method for the Determination

of the Thermal Conductivity of Soil. Soil Sci., +,.

(/) : ,//�,/2.

���� D+32,E : gh����������� ����B -- : +�/..

����� � ¡�¢£ ¤�¥¦ § D+33/E : gh�������� pp. +3/�,+* ����S�¨���

©�I�¨ D+33-E : I���� p. II�02 ª« ���¬�­®�K. J. ¯]°±²�J.L. ³°)¯O D,**,E :

´µUVWX�¶)²����gh��e.·��� <� gh���. 3* : -�3.

Ren, T., Noborio, K., and Horton, R. (+333) : Measuring

Soil Water Content, Electrical Conductivity,

and Thermal Properties with a Thermo-Time

Domain Reflectometry Probe. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.

��, +�&'() D�E �����������*�Talble , Measured Thermal Conductivity of +� Agar Gel (Water) and

Standard Reference Data

��� +�&'()D�E�����¸Wm¹+ K¹+º

Single Heat Probe� DSP�EDual Heat Probe� DDP�EDecagon Probe� DKD�E�*� D©�I�¨ +33-E

40./2

40//

4/3

40*1,

��»W¼ : gh��������� < 49

J., 0- : ./*�./1.

Shiozawa, S. and Campbell, G.S. (+33*) : Soil Thermal

Conductivity. Remote Sensing Reviews, / (+) :

-*+�-+*.

Taylor, S.A. and Jackson, R.D. (+320) : Thermal Con-

ductivity and Di#usivity. Ed. Klute, A., Methods

of Soil Analysis, Part +. Physical and Mineralog-

ical Methods second edition, pp. 3./�3/0, Madi-

son.

de Vries, D.A. and Peck, A.J. (+3/2) : On the Cylindri-

cal Probe Method of Measuring Thermal Con-

ductivity with Special References to Soils : +. Ex-

tension of theory and discussion of Probe Char-

acteristics. Aust. J. Phys., ++ : ,//�,1+.

de Vries, D.A. (+30-) : Thermal Properties of Soils. Ed.

van Wijk., W.R., Physics of Plant Environment,

pp. ,+*�,-/.

������������ +32-� : ��������������������� !"#$ %&'(�)*+,-./ ,, : +�2.

01234 : ,**,2 +3 +*405234 : ,**-2 .3 1 4

���65� 7 3-8 ,**-�50

����������� ������

����*�����*��� �*��� �*

Extraction of Soil Gas by using an Improved Gas Sampler

Hiromi IMOTO*, Tomonori FUJIKAWA*, Masaru MIZOGUCHI* and Tsuyoshi MIYAZAKI*

* Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo

+� � � � �

������ �� ���� ����� ������������� ����������������� ��� +332!" #�$% �&�� �N,! ����� �CO,! '() �CH.!*���� �N,O! +���,�� �� �O,! +���,���" �����-�.�/�0� �������12�3 4��5� 67!����89"#�:$; <%&&=�" �����>'()?@*+�A��,B�C-+�D4��� �Rolston, +320 ��./01)EFG +31, 2H +33*!" 3IJ 2H �+33*! 4����5�KLMNMO.6P ��>')�Q7.R��ST" �;� 8U/ 019D�:;/ ��>'�V</+=��WI��" X0& �YZ&04 �"#.�[#�T\� ���>'*+�Q7.R�T"�>?&X�Q7$���>'@A.�B#�"D � 0�*+.C�� DE�F �]��01�T�����������GH�I.J��+ Q7�T���>'*+��^/�A��K/�"

,� ������� �

��� : L�+����>'*+.J#" ��>'*+9D /_+/ cm>'C -� 9D ,*_-* cm>'C ,� 9D -*_.* cm>'C ,� 9D 0*_+** cm

>'C -��` +*�. +abc�� 9D /_+** cm

�Md�9D�N6�01#�"L�+ �a! �J#OPe ��� ,***! Rolston�+320! �f.g�hij5���klQj���5m+./mm�nop)qrMs �RSt� .mlTH! .U4 VWuv�& wWKxyz{n&|1����" ��>'*+�wW.kl��� VXY(}b

~.',ZP���>'.z�)���R5" OPe�"#$��� �w�[�+=�" �01�++9�\� hijVX.�)�M]&^%��T\ _��`��4 #�" ��~�r��M�M&ab�.=P�E ab����>'*+������+����.kl#�0�+=�T\ �c�dd+e&&=�" ��~�r��M�M&ab�.=P�E ��&<9��,#���kl��f#�>'��Rg���+��4�" �>'*+N6h�ab��ij.���+k��, klQjlW�kl�+���4m��,.�0#" DE � &�n��]��04 �"#+o�� 01pq �M(��r+��T"L�+ �b! �J#Q7e��>'*+V ��5�OPe��$.¡s��Q7.¢IT<�&=�" t��n)£�u {¤¥¦m +2mm& ¦v�§�j 5v���klQj �)¨O kl�X���; ��" §�j���klQj����� ��>'*+wxt��� L~�O{¤¥.',ZPT" ��klQj ©H.ª�yAT\ OPe�,z���¦m 2mm5m .mm!5X�kl{X��5RS.«|}D�#�T\��¬M­M����n)£�u�®~ ��m -./mm! .U4T" kl�X�� +mm��. .¯�=P ���kl���T" ��kl�X���>'*+.°��±²³�§�j�´.lSVµ�0���, ���19D�]�����+�gD4���+��4�" S����.���#�\�� 0����g�>'�+.�H7���e&+=��& Q7e&lSVµ�D.9D /_+/ cm

C�A�� , cm X���A�� / cm�[\ kl���g�>'�+.|1�T" �T 9D /_+/ cm

C���>'*+� ���� ;�¶nX�&<*++�4���5�lW�����~.',ZPT" D � -* cm�9���>'*+� >'*+.�U�

*�·����¸����¹�YZ¹ º++-�20/1 ?·»�� +�+�+����� : ��� ��>'*+ ­)¥�)¼

J. Jpn. Soc. Soil Phys.

���./No. 3-, p. /+�// �,**-�

� �

����������� ����� ������������������ � ! +0 mm" �� ,*

cm# $%&'�(�)*�� +,-���.��"/ 01�2234�5�6789:*�� ;< �=>" �� ?@A$BCD%EF��*'�;G)+,GA$BCG�HI�JK L'�;G:)M������ : NO�" PQR�A$SC�TO" ���" ?@A$BCUV" ?@A$G=WXY)ZW�[\�]�^_R`ab cd���+# e�,�f�DW�ghi�?@A$SC T���A$BC�Ij�?@A$BCI�kl m'`=DWno��89:*�� QNOp)�" D%kl m'`=qr`stu vo� /* cmG���,# wxD%yF /z+** cm�I�{|�A$yF T��� QNOp)�" /, +*, +/, ,*, ,/, -*, .*, 0*, 2* cm

}~ +** cmG��� ���" ��x��r�2=>�]��\)A$���-# wx����x�)�" BC����� $%&'��`�)" �w �F`=DW����%G �5�6�UV���

.# -* cm[y" �����x[y)�" ����)NOyF�)�� *'��/# ���� ���" �A$BC +,-���UV��� ����)�5�6�:��`h��" �����������)��  ¡�" �¢@£�¤��¥¦)§¨67�0# ?@A$BC UV©" ���� $%&'�� ?

��+ +,?@A$BCFig. + Soil Gas Sampler.

��, ?@A$BC�UVª«Fig. , Set up of Soil Gas Sampler.

+,�¬­u ® 3-¯ �,**-#52

������������� � ������������ �������� ������ �!"# $�%� &��'(�� )/*+/ cm+ �,(-.���/0�10� 2�3456�78�� "# 94� :;�<"6��2��=345� >�����?@AB(���C!"#1+ D�E� ���F G�<0HI�J�- +/ ml���>���KL-" )�����>���M+#2+ ,.%�NOE����F PQR<0HI�J�-��>� +**+/ ml��K� �5STU�V��K4WXY�Z����>�[�K�\!"# D�E +,

%�94. ,.%�����>���]^#3+ ��>���_�E� �����0������`a����bc!"#��K4>�.� STUdefg0� >�Rhijklm�-�n!"#>�����o.��"p�qr�s�!"$t1�9K(1� ��t���u��Av�[w�^$t1<0x���"# y5��oK-z&�{ �|}!~�<(#

-� ���������

����� : ��������6������������6���ST�� )� .0��+ � +333� -��������t>���]�4 )���� ,***+#��-��6��������!#�����t ��1\�K� �����!��K4# ��..���"�#t:;$"�#��"# �"� :;$"tz&� ,*

*-* cm� �¡8-$"�¢(�1�0� £%��\��K-("# -* cm¤&��"� :;$"�¥��

�,�.� ��� ��¦��<"z���"#���� : §&¨.� ��61��6©� �� ��¦����1¡(45� ��iª�«f¬­®¯°'�K4# ± � ²(¨.� §&¨�)³*´+K� ¡,µx¶K�·�¸�¹tK4��� -º�«f¬­

��. ���"� :;$"�#Fig. . Soil Hardness and Bulk density.

��- ��6»��� )��� ,***+Fig. - Soil profiles.

¼. : ����>������²(t>��� / 53

������� ��� ��������������������� !�"#�� ������$��%���&' ()*+,$-./' 012$)�34567*%���' 869�()*�:;<=�">"#�� <�' ?�/6@�A�BCA�8D�����E�' F9G��HIJ' �� K$LMN6O%� H&PQRST()*UV<��WX' X, Y&YZ[Z()*+,�\X�]�� BCA&' Y, H$^_6`a��������a' ��E�' ��HIJ' �� K�

b@�A6cd/efC>_g����h3�9i6' BCA�&' @�A�cd9=����jGklWX�^_"36' ������69=' mno�pq>r3q�� ����s�t�u��a' vw�kl6xyi�� vwkl6Fz/&' {|}�Q~+,6��$����' {|5' ���$()q�����%���������0��"�� W~+�&{|���&�">8D���vw�klb0��"��?�0& CO,, O,8D���f,� ���T' ,***� �

��/ 8D��()��Fig. / Vacuum of soil gas.

��0 8D�� �CO,, O,� �f,� ���T ,***�Fig. 0 CO,, O, Concentrations in Soil.

8D���o � 3-� �,**-�54

�������������� ����� � 0

�a��� �� +** cm������������� ���� ��!"# $%&� ��'()*+,-./�0�1����+,-�23)%�1 ��4��5���+,����������6�783.�$6#9���� ��� � 0 �b�� .��#:;� 1���&<�6� $%=���.>?��#

.� � � �

�4��+,�����.@�� A���.���B�����+,6# �4����+,��.6�� �4��.+,/�C��DEF�&� ���� ����9 G=D��� H!I� J"� KLM#�N���N��O$P;�%=%# A�&Q.' +�2R�8�S#$%8�� �4��+,�N��(T�D���D

UV#�� ������23� WX�YD�Z[�\]�9)T^_���`*�D��EF=%��4��+,���IK�N��&+abcdef,g�h-6#

� � � �

i.jk�lmn/�012oT�p� q �+332� :

3UD�rs3.St6�� �uvwxyz{�|/4L�5yb : -*.

�46,���}~b7 �+31,� : �46,M����8�9� pp. ,//�,0,.

:��T���50� �+33*� : ���������.�;��<���=>����� 4L�5yb��/, �+,� : ,3�-+.

?2@��p� q�� �����AB �,***� : .CD�E�����4F!6�$G� CO,, O,��H"$G�I��N��� 4L�5ybJK��,*2 : +3�,2.

Rolston, D.E. (+320) : Gas Flax, In : A. Klute (Ed)

Method of soil analysis Part +. American Society

of Agronomy : ++*-�+++3.

��L�M : ,**-L +� 1 M�,L�M : ,**-L /� +,M

�+ ��������&QTable + Comparison of Old and New of improved

� � � � � �

H!M N���� ��� �I�¡g+,¢�� O£ ¢�&¤S=%��O£&

T��D�`P-� ��Q-�23+,¢��¥¦� +,O£�T�

��§ �4�¨/�$���3�783.©$/

`P-.��ª«¬­.��#S�4�¨®¯��783&D�

��^_ +,-��N5°±�RS� ��T��'.(�RS��3²­.S/�

³�]\´��µ6°±��ª«�O¶�KLM�·ª

���� �U�¸=N�

!"� �783�2� ��D�

0¹���VºM W� »�

¼X : �4����+,��������+,�� 55

�� TDR��������� �������

� � � �*

Practical Application of Time Domain Reflectometry :

Simultaneous Measurement of Water and Salt contents in Soil

Kosuke NOBORIO*

* Faculty of Agriculture, Iwate University, -�+2�2 Ueda, Morioka, Iwate *,*�2//*, Japan

+� � � � �

����������������� ������������� ��������������� !" #�$���!�%�&�' (TimeDomain Reflectometry, TDR)��������*����+���� ���������,������� -!�*��./�,���0��� (12���) � ����3!�4�" 567����-�82,�9:;<"=>��?�@���� ! TDR��4�6 (#��AB� +33- ; $C� +330 ; D%� +332 ;

Mojid,� ,**,)� E#��&F��'�(�)G��� �?�" (:;� �*H (,***) �� &F����IJK������+L� TDR��MN� ,�%�O!N������� �?�" -!� ��, (,**,) �P,QR-�S. �?�/T0��������UVW1X�Y2� TDR��MZ�� �?�"TDR��M�������0�������[�

�34�5\�� #��AB (+33,) �] ?" ^_������0�������@����?�`KabcKdef�ghij`dkh�� 67��8l�ghij`mn9o:p�� qghij�;rs3��$���! TDR��t�4�" � � +31*�uv<�, 2*�u���=3�w!26���x� !�6�ghij`dkh�yN!�������z-Z�4�{O��" 6)��� =|����������� ����}~���>?��?�`KabcKde +/*,C�ghij`dkh�yN! TDR� TDR

�bhi�����?�����" !6N�� ��������@L !���h�4�����j����

�`��Ke� CS0+/�����������e�ECHO�bhi�yN!�����O~?"

,� TDR���

TDR��M�����A6��+�����" ghij`dkh�"����?��jd��t�,B���!�*�� qghij��ON�����C��!�� L (m) ��bhi ;��¡DE�F��" �bhizG-�F !�*��¢E��'���ghij`dkh�H�I�" £N!�*���,��bhi�¤G-�F � ���£Z¥E��*�6�'���ghij`dkh�H�IN�¦�" ��M���' �IN� !�*���§6¨�bd©h�ª�J����"ghij`dkh�,«j¬�mK�h (@K�bhi�­t) �® ��bhi-����¯h°�d�+

*±²³� �E ´*,*�2//* µ¶·ªL¸MN +2�2��� : ��� ����� ¹º»��� �0���� �bhi

��+ TDR��M����A�(Noborio, ,**+MZ)

J. Jpn. Soc. Soil Phys.

���=3¼No. 3-, p. /1�0/ �,**-�

� �

����,����� �� ����� D�E������ ��� ����� D�������� �� ��-���!"# $%&' �()*�+,-. D�E�����/012345�6789�:�-�;����� �� D������:�;���/�����

-� ��� q���

/012345�:����514<=> $��,� D

?@' �AB�� C4<DE2F4GH514<� �IJK K�LMC4<D�N��OPHJKQR� ��-�����S��514<�T�S�J� U���V�.WOPHJK -G-� 514<=> $��,� D' GH514<X> $��,� E' � �%& $YGZ�514<N�' La $m' �� ��-�����S��[\]� � ^_]� `a�b514<�cV-�de�� U�fg�hi.jklJ�

TDRm�S��� U����� ��nopq�2*br��std $uv�nopqw-x+*� yz�nopqw+' �n{-.|}�jkK~e�������- ��Ji�J� U�]b`a����cV-�N� Lw*.+* m�514<GH��-�p���S�����-� � U�fg�hi.C4<DE2F4�/012345�:����YGZ�514<N� La $m' �NlJ� Lb LaGH��nopq e

��

ew��La

LVp

��

,

b����� $AmatoH� +33-' ���� Vp�C4<DE2F4������LMC4<D���Z�p��������* �� $�� U����� ��}Vpw*.33����������K' ����q q $m-�m-' b��nopq eb����� ������S�

��- � U� K O���������¡ $Noborio, ,**+SR'

��, TDRC4<DE2F4GH514<� �¢£¤4¥£2�AB�JO�$NoborioH� +33.SR'

��d¦~ § 3-¨ $,**-'58

���������� �Topp � +32*��q��/.-�+*�,�,.3,�+*�,e�/./�+*�.e,�..-�+*�0e- ������� ����������� !� "�� �#��$� %�&� ��'�� �(� )*+,-*�./01�2345��� 676� 8�98��:;��<#=�2���>(�?� q0@�A=BC�DE�F��?� Miyamoto �,**+� �8�98�=�C�GHIJ0

q��-./0�+*�,�..-/�+*�,e�+.,-�+*�-e,�+..2�+*�/e-��:;=�K6L�� =� ��M ���NO= �C� n�7 ��P���=�6Q�=��6L TDR������ �R�:;=������� L �m� �=S5��N�TUM� q� �m-�m-� 0�C� �Topp � +32,��

q����

n

i�+

zi qi����

n

i�+

zi �

��=� zi� i�����V�? L���

n

i�+

zi���� qi�

i������TUM� �m-�m-� ?F���WXY�.�:;=���Z�� ,������ ��� L +�/ ����� +��� L+�-����� ,� 0��� 7 Q�=��=��6� [\�����=:��TUM���! q�+�/� q�+�-0]^ ,���������_=FL���?F� z.=S5��N�TUM� q�.0`�:;=B?a��

676� M bcd �"e� f#���g=hc���F�i!� =S5��NUM���=�6�� ����j$7 �%kl&0'6(����)m��� �Nadler � +33+�� Mojid �,**,� noL� f#���UM�� qp*.+/ �m-�m-� �i!=� TDR*qrs+�tuvwxy �WinTDR� 0]^�rs�z(?F���0)m6��� O,� Noborio �+330� �� -f{=b.C�M �bc|Jl&0�R=}~�/�=B6���

.� �������

TDR0?�1O�����0]^2�34���n5d=?a�� ���6�_� +*78��9�?�� ���2�34� EC���6� C��=����Jq�� �C�m�nEC� m� n��� ��$C��?� 2�34��6X6X��6��:��=]��� ���6�_� +*78��g=���� EC� C����Jq?�������?��� �U.S. Salinity

Lab. Sta#, +3/.�� ��6��6���=6L�^�

���j$?%k�L2�*��� �2�� V����C�;��Y�/=���� �� ../ cm� -JR���� �����<��� +.* cm� 0]^L���?�� ��6�� *.+ mol�kg:�=a��������j$?�2�*�%k�����������7�� ��=�6L�:�n����������^L�<��������� n^�>6�?2�*�%k����������M ���=O?@=]+���+8v��8*� +/*,C�����+*��=�� Vo� V��!7 2�*�A�B����� �* R �¡� 0�¢�:;=£¤6��C�<C�¥¦§o���

R�ZuV�

,Vo�V��

��= Zu�5¨�����'(���� �* �¡� ?F�� ������ �* R0D+C���

EC� aR�b �

��;��0]^2�34� EC �S�m� 0©1=�?a�� ��= a, b�����O�O�=ª��GH��?��o«o� EC=E¬�L­M �NaCl> KCl

�3���� F= TDR����0b6G � +�R�®H� EC����7 G �� �^L2� a, b

�¯oX� [� TDR����0]^2�34����°C���� [�±²�³�´8µ0]^IJ��K�FX� ²�³�´8µ0¶6·���

q�.�q�+�/L+�/�q�+�-L+�- �

L+�/�L+�-

�. L��Q� TDR����=:���MM ���¸N

r¹ : º» TDR0¼+ 59

�� a, b��������� Heimovaara��+33/ �� *.- S�m��������������������� !�"#��$�%&'�

EC( aR)Rcable

*b �

�+�,-�.#/0� Rcable�� 1234�567�89:4;9< �= >�?@4�AB �C�,� DDE �F�GH/��I"J� RK>�������LMN��-34�5O<P4>���� RK�QGN�� RcableK� RK�RI/�S>M�0TULMN��-� VW-I/ EC�X�K�YQ�ZG[� \�]G +*m���1234�5�+����� EC�X�K�R�� Rcable�^_�`a>��>$��+����� �Reece, +332 b�c-bde�������fghbd�i������ ECw�j&H"�jk�������lmn������o"�p5q����� ECb-rs ��bd�tuI" TDR?@4��� ,� ECb�����bd�i������ ECw�p5q�����ECb-vwxy� q� ��z{-I/|�g���G[� �Kachanoski�� +33,

ECw(f+�q ECb*f,�q �,,�� f+ �q - f, �q �R}-��bd�~���{>� q�z{-I/�G[���� ECw- q�0�[���I/� TDR�>��I/0�p5q�����ECb�K�����,-����� f+ �q - f, �q ���������-J���m���>���� Hilhorst �,*** � q�*.+m-�m-�bd�RI/ ECw �S�m - ECb �S�m ���|�g��z���,-���k���I"

ECw(ewECb

eb)eECb(*

��

,,�� ew�bdi������� ECb� TDR�>����bd�p5q����� �S�m ��o"��$ � eb� TDR�>����bd����� ��$ �eECb(*� ECb(*-��-M�bd�����>��k��#����� Persson �,**, �� *.*/�*./S�m��y� *.+-�*.-1m-�m-�y���I" -�����bd�RI/ ew(2* �y����� -��I/��$���>�,-���I" ��+� Hilhorst �,*** ��I"� m�bd�R�� eECb(*�K�¡¢���bd£>����¤���¥¦�§¨������bd�i������ ECw����©������>� �$¤��$m�bd�p5q����� ECb����ª���I/�bd£�����¤����©��>����>�,-�&m� �$¤��$>�G[�g�� ECw�X���"#��� bd� ECb- q

�0� eb�1J�©����� 34�5O<P4

��/ �i«��¬0>����­®�{�LMG �Noborio, ,**+g'

��+ Go¯o�bd�R�� eECb(*�K �Hilhorst,,***

b d °b ±5² � �³� eECb(*

�����������

´µ<¶4·@¸q¹45Groesbeek

Wichmond

Ferralsol-A

Munnikenland

Attapulgite

ºº+*

+.

0-

.*

+**

ºº1*

-+

,0

/0

*

ºº,*

//

++

-

*

ºº

*43/

.4-

*

/

*

140

.4+

,41

+43

.4.

/42

-4+

bd���� » 3-¼ �,**- 60

���� TDR������� ����������������������� �� !���"#$�%&�'��(�)*+,-.�/01 ECw2�3�45�67�89:1��"!(1;<����=>?�� @ABCDEF ECw GS�mH �@AIFJK�L01!� IFMN�O�<PQ"R1= ECw

GS�mH �S$ ,/T@AIF�/01� ECw,/ GS�mH���UV'�1= ��"��� WX;<�IFMN�O�<PQ"R1 GU.S. Salinity Lab. Sta#, +3/.H=

,*�T�.1TYZ

ECw,/[ECw��+.**\ G,/]TH

.3.1\G,/]TH,

-1,2�� ��

-�T�,2TYZ

ECw,/[ECw��+.**\ G,/]TH

/-.-\G,/]TH,

+001�� ��

���� T�@AIF GTH !R1=

/� ������ Cr�

,-.�/01@^_`abcd�PQ���e�/01fghF Cr�� X��;<�ijkl,-@AhF Ci� mn@AhF Co� ��hF C�cd'�1= fghF Cr��

Cr[C]Ci

Co]Ci��

��o'�1= C[m\nEC�p<qa"rs:1hFtu!�� Cr�v�w�@A EC!x'�1= ��X� C[m\nECwqa�yz:1�

Cr[Gm\nECwH]Gm\nECwiHGm\nECwoH]Gm\nECwiH

��

��1= m� n��b�!{|'���

Cr[ECw]ECwi

ECwo]ECwi��

;<� Cr�,-@ABCDEF ECwqb���x'�1= '�,-}_~ q" ����!��X. f+ GqH � f, GqH R1p���X. eb� ����1!� TDR�!,- ECb���:1���;�� ECw� o3���:1��"!(1=��"�����X���X�yz:1�

��1= ��! f- GqH � f. GqH � q" �YZ��b�!{|'��� >�3��

Cr[��+

R] +

Ri

����

+

Ro] +

Ri

��]+

;<������������0�fghF Cr

�cd:1��"!(1 GKachanoski� +33,H= ���� R���e�/p�2�3�45:1,-������� G�H� Ri �ijkl�/01,-������� G�H� v�� Ro�,-@A"mn@A�;�����m(n����,-�������G�H�x:= Ro���ij@A�mn@A���n�?�_���"2��� R�"����45�����������������p=��0��� �� +* cm���� ���,-�}

¡}!*+��?� ¢}�£�������¤�¥¦§�¨:= ©' 2.3 cm ,¦X TDR�����,-xª� / cm«m�}¬�­z������= TDR�!���� ECb�;��x'�1¤�¥¦ G��0 GAHH ���XR1p��X�;��cd�� Cr�;1¤�¥¦G��0 GBHH !R1=

Cr[

��f-GqH

+

R\f.GqH��]

��f-GqH

+

Ri\f.GqH�� ���

�f-GqH+

Ro\f.GqH��]

��f-GqH

+

Ri\f.GqH�� ��0 ®xª� / cm�}¬¯°�±²�� TDR�

����;�����*+,-�/01¢_¤�¥¦= GAH ³´µBCDEF ECb�;1¤�¥¦� GBH ������� R�;1fghF¤�¥¦=

¶· : ¸¹ TDR�º» 61

0� �������

+� ������� �������TDR������������� ����� ,

����� -�� ������������ � �1!"TDR������� �������#$� +32*%&'������� �(�)*+

),

�-./

��0�*1���2%3��4�567859��:���*1�" ��+32*%&'�� ,������� ,**;< TV�=��>?4@)� ,**;=��>�=��>65A��=��>65A� B� /*;! � C�D7E�F75GH�IJ75 �KJ7! ?LMN����OP��" Q R ,**;=��>� /*;ST=��>�OU*V0P���� ,��������KJ7�� W�1/��XY�Z�X��� [1�1/Z\Y�B])�"Q/)�^ ZegelinP �+323! �� /*;ST=��>�_44@N� -������?`�)�" -���������Y�Z\Y a-Pbcd�e�f��3g� Q R TDR���� V�X[hi�[U�" )j)2% ,������� /*;ST=��>?_44@)*b�k[���3g�f��Zl��*g� 3�PetersenP� +33/ ; FerreP� +332!� /*;ST=��>?_44@)� ,������bm��0���/�[U*1�" �P�� Hook� Livingston �+33/! ��/*;ST=��> V0n� TVo76p� 1/;ST=��>?�U*b���qr��1f�?�s)�" NoborioP �+333! �� t���uIvwxy67

z{>?|} ����3��N��$ ~� TDR����� 1/;ST=��>?4@)�"�P��U�����hi��)*�� 1/;ST=��>?�/f���U*����#��� ������[U�"

,������ D7E�F75 Z �;! ��

Z������

ln��

,sd�� ��

�/����� �Kraus, +32.!" ff�� e�����?On���� ����� s����� ��� ^�C�� �m!� d�� _� �m! 3��" �����/*;� 1/; ST=��> a-P?��)�P�1 j�� ���3�$P������ D7E�F75��3��" ���� �,����� DjP E�j�* ���]���$��� ���� D7E�F75�ST=��> D7E�F75 � �, �H� /*;!�n��1� ���" �-� ��� Z�� ����� e

�� ��¡1*�����4@N�ST=��> D7E�F75 �/*��1� 1/;!?t�[1f����)1"

,� ��������ZegelinP �+323! �� ��¢�[�C£ s b�3� e?��)��f¤� s�¥0P¦}� e§?d*1�" ��� Stein� Kane �+32-! �� ��� C£�¨©�<3[�*b e ��§ª «¬�­�,a�1��s)*1�" )j)� ®� ¯°± �²����³´ !µ}�"?#���$�� � _� d��C£ s

���*¶��·g1 �d�s¸*.+! � ��� �Knight,

��1 ,��� -������ ¹º �Noborio, ,**+�n!

�� ��» � 3-¼ �,**-!62

+33,�� ���� Petersen� �+33/� � d�s*.*,�� ������������������� d�s����������� ��������!������������" ��#$%���� Petersen��+33/� �����&'()*�+ ��,-� hc

�mm� �

���./� ���� Pc'()*�����0�!� �1234)� �*5Pc5+� �6�� ���� s,/

mm� d+.0 mm� Pc*.3/�78� hc+,./ mm�&�� �9� ��:;�'()*�<%�����=�!�� 3/����>�/��� '()*������./;����,-� +,./ mm?@���6���"���&��

-� �������'()*����A��� Ren� �+333� B

Lmax�������������

���������

Lmin����

��

���.���� ��� Lmax+�'()*�� �m��Lmin+ '()*�� �m�� VT� VR� C �/�D� �!E"F �V� �#G"F �V� �� TDR��H �IJ3 +/*,C� @�� C #GK$ rTVT�VoL+MNO rRVR�VoL+�.��� �� ���� e

�P��%"� ECb�P�Q3R"S&'( �S�m�� t"T)B'()*���U*��>�V0 �s��c+W,�MX�Y- �Z-[+*2 m�s� �6����\�M�� VT��VRLVT��+]rT���rRLrT��+*�V�^��#G)�._`���B����a�>��� e,/� ECb*.*/ S�m��P�/.� Lmax�*.0+ m�&�� ��\�'()*��0b sBc0� ��&�B� �d�e7�P�12>�d�'()*�� L��,�&��0b sf#G)�g3�#4>����5h>���B6����\,� tc�,�\� La�6.���� Lmin<2>� TDR��H��i7�'()*��� L�j8>�� Ren� �+333� � kRl(mRno +/*,pq)*3knr)�<%/78� Lmin*.*,- m�st.���� �9� �P�� ,- mm?u�9v�MX�!����� +/*,pq)*3knr)�<%�w��x:�6���y;�6��� �/.� Nissen� �+332� � '()*�"w�

.�<=�z>��<"��&�� {|3;�./"=�<%/� "=�{|3;�>����N%�q)*3knr)��}/"w�������`���B��� ?V�@��&'()*�A�� +/ mm�>����B~./� ���C�� ��<� -.0 mm�{|3;'()*�<"� . mm���,-�B6 �^�&D(�!����>���B�7�6%/�E�.����

1� � �

FE�GH�<%/kRl(mRnoI +/*,��)�� TDR��J�� e�IK,��&%���� .�.� ����3��|1�k����Ro��LM� ��� TDR+**� N7��f�7��f +/*,��)��OP������6���$ �� �|3I|n��)�|R|'��lo� Trasef +/*,��)�� TDR+**�?6�N7�Q.���B��|3I|n��)o���R�&'()*�ST.&���Us���&�VBW��X�����FY�"Z=�q)*3k��2?�q)*3�[���2�.� TDR\q)*3knr)B� �Bicotesto�\ � Granite Island Groupo&���¡L� ���� .�.� � �� TDR\q)*3knr)B�P!��"S&'(����¢� /��]�&���� £����$ ¤^_/&��H�`¥�¦,§.��/¨�/�� a7��<2�c�&X �� ���6�/��?©�ªN7& TDR��J� �«¬��l�kR­(¬)o 20+**B�kRl(mRno ++2*+]SDL,.&�� B¡L� �M,�b®�,/ mm� TDR'()*�<%�f^��ªD(&!����B�7�6� �Kelly�� +33/��q)*3knr)�<%/ TDRc��d� �#G):�,�FE�iG./�%"�"S&'(�¯��/��°E?©�f Heimovaara �+33.� BD./N"�e±�°E�!¤���� ./B%�� ��):°E�Q²�f2>���B³� TDRc�<%/´µ� TDRc�¶2�A&B%�����$ ��

� � �

Amato, M., De Lorenzi, F. and Oliviere, B. (+33-) :

Riflettometria nel dominio del tempo (TDR) per

la misura dell’umidita volumetrica del terreno. I :

Principi generali ed applicazioni. Riv. di

Agronomia, ,1 : +�2.

g·hi �+330� : TDRc�N�j¸k=�¹§º l�;»� +2, : +0-�+0..

hc

+

.�s,Ld,�

�����

sd]����������

.�+LPc�

L+

iG : �m TDRc¼2 63

Ferre, P.A., Redman, J.D., Rudolph, D.L. and

Kachanoski, R.G. (+332) : The dependence of the

electrical conductivity measured by time

domain reflectometry on the water content of a

sand. Water Resour. Res., -. : +,*1�+,+-.

����� �,***� : ��� ����� ��� �� ���� 2- : .+�.0.

Heimovaara, T.J. (+33.) : Frequency domain analysis

of time domain reflectometry waveforms : +.

Measurement of the complex dielectric permit-

tivity of soils. Water Resour. Res., -* : +23�+33.

Heimovaara, T.J., Focke, A.G., Bouten, W. and

Verstraten, J.M. (+33/) : Assessing temporal vari-

ations in soil water composition with time

domain reflectometry. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., /3 :

023�032.

Hilhorst, M.A. (,***) : A pore water conductivity

sensor. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 0. : +3,,�+3,/.

Hook, W.R. and Livingston, N.J. (+33/) : Propaga-

tion velocity errors in time domain reflectometry

measurements of soil water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,

/3 : 3,�30.

������ !" �+33,� : TDR#$%�� &'(�)*$+,-./0 12#345� �� ���� 0/ : //�0+.

������ !" �+33-� : -6789:;#$%���< TDR=1� >�?@� +02 : ++3�+,*.

Kachanoski, R.G., Pingle, E. and Ward, A. (+33,) :

Field measurement of solute travel times using

time domain reflecotmetry. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,

/0 : .1�/,.

Kelly, S.F., Selker, J.S. and Green, J.L. (+33/) : Using

short soil moisture probes with high-bandwidth

time domain reflectometry instruments. Soil Sci.

Soc. Am. J., /3 : 31�+*,.

ABCD �+332� : TDR#$%EF�� �<GHIJ0 12� KL>M-NOPQRSTPU� /0 : --�-2.

Knight, J.H. (+33,) : Sensitivity of time domain

reflectometry measurements to lateral varia-

tions in soil water content. Water Resour. Res.,

,2 : ,-./�,-/,.

Kraus, J.D. (+32.) : Electromagnetics. -rd ed. McGraw-

Hill Book Co., New York.

Miyamoto, T., Kobayashi, R., Annaka, T. and

Chikushi, J. (,**+) : Applicability of multiple

length TDR probes measure water distributions

in an Andisol under di#erent tillage systems in

Japan. Soil & Tillage Res., 0* : 3+�33.

Mojid, M.A., Toride, N. and Cho, H. (,**,) : The e#ct

of heterogeneous soil-water distribution on the

TDR measurement of soil-water content. �� ���� 3* : ++�+3.

Nadler, A., Dasberg, S. and Lapid, I. (+33+) : Time

domain reflectometry measurements of water

content and electrical conductivity of layered

soil columns. Soil Sci. Soc. AM. J., // : 3-2�3.-.

Nissen, H.H., Moldrup, P. and Henriksen, K. (+332) :

High-resolution time domain reflectometry coil

probe for measuring soil water content. Soil Sci.

Soc. Am. J., 0, : +,*-�+,++.

VWXY�Z[\]�^_ `�a�Cb�cd[ef�,**,� : ghijklm#*n%�� opqr:st� >�U� 1* : 0-+�0-..

Noborio, K. (,**+) : Measurement of soil water

content and electrical conductivity by time

domain reflectometry : a review. Comput. Elec-

tron. Agric., -+ : ,+-�,-1.

Noborio, K., Horton, R. and Tan, C.S.(+333) : Time

domain reflectometry probe for simultaneous

measurement of soil matric potential and water

content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 0- : +/**�+/*/.

Noborio, K., McInnes, K.J. and Heilman, J.L. (+330) :

Measurements of cumulative infiltration and

wetting front location by time domain re-

flectometry. Soil Sci., +0+ : .2*�.2-.

Noborio, K., McInnes, K.J. and Heilman, J.L. (+33.) :

Field measurements of soil electrical con-

ductivityu and water content by time-domain

reflectometry. Comput. Electron. Agric., ++ : +-+�+.,.

Petersen, L.W., Thomsen, A., Moldrup, P., Jacobsen,

O.H. and Rolston, D.E. (+33/) : High-resolution

time domain reflectometry : Sensitivty depend-

ency on probe-design. Soil Sci., +/3 : +.3�+/..

Persson, M. (,**,) : Evaluating the linear dielectric

constant-electrical conductivity model using

time-domain reflectometry. Hydrol. Sci. J. .1 :

,03�,11.

Reece, C.F. (+332) : Simple method for determining

cable length resistance in time domain re-

flectometry systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 0, :

�� ��� u 3-v �,**-�64

-+.�-+1.

Ren, T., Noborio, K. and Horton, R. (+333) : Measuring

soil water content, electrical conductivity, and

thermal properties with a thermo-time domain

reflectometry probe. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 0- :

./*�./1.

Stein, J. and Kane, D.L. (+32-) : Monitoring the un-

frozen water content of soil and snow using time

domain reflectometry. Water Resour. Res., +3 :

+/1-�+/2..

Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L. and Annan, A.P. (+32*) : Elec-

tromagnetic determination of soil water con-

tent : Measurements in coaxial transmission

lines. Water Resour. Res., +0 : /1.�/2,.

Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L. and Annan, A.P. (+32,) : Elec-

tromagnetic determination of soil water content

using TDR : I. Applications to wetting fronts

and steep gradients. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., .0 :

01,�012.

U.S. Salinity Laboratory Sta# (+3/.) : Diagnosis and

improvement of saline and alkaline soils. Agri-

culture Handbook. no. 0*. U.S.D.A., U.S. Govern-

ment Printing O$ce, Washington D.C.

Zegelin, S.J., White, I. and Kenkins, D.J. (+323) :

Improved field probes for soil water content and

electrical conductivity measurement using time

domain reflectometry. Water Resour. Res., ,/ :

,-01�,-10.

����� : ,**,� +*� + ������ : ,**-� + � -*�

�� : TDR�� 65

,+����� ����

�������� ��� ,**-���A/� -/*� ISBN.�/.*�*,+/-�, �� -,3**

����������������������������� �� !���" ������#$%&�'��� �����(��)*�" +�,-./ �0���& 12�345, +����/ ��6789����,:��;<=& >,��<�?@A�BCD<=�E���F��G=���" + ,-./�0��� Hillel, HOut of the EarthI �J�<=�K%&LMNO�PQR5, + ����S�TU*/�E%V��G=�E��$��WX" Y=G,��� ,��Z,������$� �0��, +-./ �J�<=���" Y=�![& �A,-.�& +��" �\#]1^_`�$%*aW/ ���b&cd,e'��S,e(�$����� �f� )���g*�$hi�jk�Y��$���� +-./ ���" �A,���+ -l�S mnO`,op�qrs���,�Y,X7���"�A��& �67�����,� ���-.tu��K��vwM_,x�/�0y<=& ��" �z,E��x��aWU,{1�2����" 0��& |},~3�� ,24,�5�� )��� ,���0���Y,E��x��aW������e'���>[��)��$�G& 6�${1�7�[���"� �S�����8�, ��9� ����,� ������ 8�, -.�x��� �,9[�UUr%/,X7���,�5�UG$��A,:;�<=*�Y��>[�,�& b&�0y*�"���?�.@�U%�$��A�.@��0Y��

�=rX�����0=& �� B�C��A�.@,�����[���,���UG& >,���D�E"��7>Y����F�GH*aW����e'��IL�NUGJ���*�" Y,E��b/�����x�UX�z�[�;���,U�& �K�J�,LMUG;�[���" ), f"����d,Nf"�,0/��O7��& " ,PQB"�E% ),�E ��f"�,R �G����" )�SE%B f"����& [�[� ,TUf��[��V,WX�Y ��& Z¡[\]UG��� ),/�^B���" Y,= -*�¢� )£¤A_� +.*` haB¥¦[���,� f"��|aE%b�[& c§A_dX%, f"�� 2/�Bb�[&e¨f��$��K%& Y,99���A�.@,��©����,GH�UU��[9�" +ghi/ �?ª�«�[�, B",j¬" Z­k®�A�.@,l¯�?�¨f�°{[X���7�[XX7�?6X,����& Y,1�B��m��P±& N²*=�& �UG,e'�E%D³<=��´�" 9X& �n«[X�,&��o(�p*Y�� @���UB[=$��& �µf� .*�,��d��& d�qr��X#q�� �¶[�W=��$G$���,sUG�x��" ��,�0�A�.@,#q�S��a� )��,t§u�J�<=& �A�B )���,�·1�d����" vw�µf,AUG�S¤,�µf,©��� !����& S¤����*� -.��)[$�,U" Y,E��x��,�& )E%BS�tx$y¸z���UGUB�=$��"

{|}¹b ºy¸z�»�»��@¼

J. Jpn. Soc. Soil Phys.

�~,DuNo. 3-, p. 01 �,**-�

� �

�� � � ���������������� � ����������������������� ,� � ������!��"#$%&'��()* � "� ��+*� ,-����� ����.)/01 234� 5�� 6 78�9�� :;78�����0� <�=�����>/?@A�A�B� �

#"CD� "� E0�(��F 3G���� -�HI��2D"��� J��K�)L��8�MNLO�#4)L23�� �P��QJ$����RS�T�IU��D�#4���VW� "� X #<�=��2� YL/4����� �#���

.��1

����

<�=Z[

����J

J � \� ] .�^ Q Q_!Q`"aQbca1# J � de fg .�^!h Q Q_1i�j< �k l .�^ Q Q_!Q`"aQbca1Jmj< �� $% .�^ Q Q_!Q`"aQbca1��j< R ln .�^ Q Q_!Q`"aQbca1

o , - .pq Q!Q&1Jmr6 s' t .�^!h Q!Q&1

o uv (w .)*x!yz{|1

� � � �� +} .pq Q!Q&1� � ~� � .�� Q!Q&1

'� �� .�� Q!Q&1�' �, .�-x. Q/� Q&1�`-01 .X� Q!Q&12.@3� .4.��5�!y��bc�Z1�-�@6 .4.��5�!y��bc�Z1�p � .pq Q!Q&178 f� .�9 Q!Q&1

���� � 3-� .J�:;1 ,**-� -� ,/3��

�� � � � �,**-� -� -+3�2

�++-�20/1 �^<(^�=` +�+�+�^ Q Q_ !Q`"aQbca`����hQ>� ��?�Qbc�@

A B *-�/2.+�/-/+, /-1. FAX *-�/2.+�2+1+Eomail sp-staff�soil.en.a.u-tokyo.ac.jpURL http ://soil.en.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp/jssp/��k� � ¡�� �¢MC

DE ,.*101- �P��QJ FG \� ],**-� .� +3)L

�1**�2/-* dpxdp£HI -�+�+dp Q���hQ&��¤�hQa `¥¦J¤�QKL@

A B *20�,/+�221.� 221-E-mail [email protected] http : //wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jssp-/index.html��k� §�� 5¨_MC .CM� +*.1

DE +11/,,/ �P��QJ J� ©ª«N����J<�= .�878O�¬1

­®�¯°±²°³ .http : //wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jssp-/1 2´X���µP �¶Y#�E-mail [email protected]#rc.go.jp

� � Q(:;hy·¸J¹�++0�**++ �^<ºR�»S� 1¼+,¼+0

68

�������

���������� ������� ����� ��������� � !"#�$%��&�'()*+),-.�� �/01 ��2*34*56�78&�'9*:;01 !�78&<��= �*>��?@*ABC �-.* !�� DE�FGHIJ<��=K+*1�**/, LMNOPQR 3�0�.+ STRUV WX�YFTEL : *-�-.1/�/0+2 FAX : *-�-.1/�/0+3 Eomail : [email protected]

Notice about Photocopying

In order to photocopy any work from this publication, you or your organization must obtain permission

from the following organization which has been delegated for copyright for clearance by the copyright

owner of this publication.

Japan Academic Association for Copyright Clearance (JAACC)

.+�0 Akasaka 3ochome, Minatooku, Tokyo +*1�**/,, Japan

TEL : 2+�-�-.1/�/0+2 FAX : 2+�-�-.1/�/0+3 Eomail : [email protected]

Contents

./th Symposium, Japanese Society of Soil Physics (Information)

Candidate for Award, Japanese Society of Soil Physics (General invitation)

Foreword���������������������������������M. MIZOGUCHI� +

Original Papers

Soil Solution Concentration Prediction of Volcanic Ash Soil upon Addition of Acid

Solutions di#er in Anion Composition

��������������K. KAMEYAMA, S. MATSUKAWA, T. ISHIDA and H. KATO� -

Changes of Heat Balance Components, Soil Temperature and Soil Water Suctions at

the Upland Field in Nakastsunai village, Hokkaido

�Mainly about the Observed Results� ������T. ISHIWATA and N. KOBAYASHI�+-

An Evaluation of Co#ee Crop Factor under Di#erent Weed Managements Using

USLE Method in Hilly Humid Tropical Area of Lampung, South Sumatra, Indonesia

���AFANDI, T. K. MANIK, B. ROSADI, M. UTOMO, M. SENGE, T. ADACHI and Y. OKI�,+

Influence of Moisture Content on Soil Respiration in Acid Sulfate Soils

����������������������K. UENO, T. ADACHI and H. NARIOKA�-/

Notes

Comparison of the Methods Measuring of Soil Thermal Conductivity

�������������������H. MOCHIZUKI, I. SAKAGUCHI and M. INOUE�.1

Miscellaneous

Extraction of Soil Gas by using an Improved Gas Sampler

�������������H. IMOTO, T. FUJIKAWA, M. MIZOGUCHI and T. MIYAZAKI�/+

Lectures

Practical Application of Time Domain Reflectometry : Simultaneous Measurement of

Water and Salt contents in Soil �������������������K. NOBORIO�/1

Book Review �������������������������������S. HASEGAWA�01

Editor’s Postscript �����������������������������������02

Japanese Society of Soil Physics(Up to March -+, ,**-)

Department Biological and Environmental Engineering

Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo

+�+�+ Yayoi Bunkyooku, Tokyo ++-�20/1, Japan

(From April +, ,**-)

Department of Environmental Management Engineering

Faculty of Environmental Science and Technology, Okayama University

-�+�+ Tsushimaonaka, Okayama 1**�2/-*, Japan

Journal of the Japanese Society

of

Soil Physics

No. 3- March ����


Recommended