Laserfiche WebLink
82 <br />The soil check (Panel 4) exhibited consistently lower moisture <br />readings at all depths through the growing season. This may be a result <br />of lower infiltration rates which reduce storage and tend to keep the <br />moisture in the upper layer of the profile where it is more subject to <br />evaporation. <br />Consistently high moisture readings were obtained at the 30 and <br />45 cm depths in Panel 6 (61 cm soil over 30.5 cm gravel). This increased <br />moisture may be accounted for by the presence of the gravel layer acting <br />as a capillary barrier. Water in the profile is unable to move across <br />the gravel layer and is stored in the overlying soil material. <br />Relatively high moisture readings were also observed in Panel 3 <br />(g1.5 cm soil cover). The large amount of soil material in the profile <br />may have allowed for greater moisture storage which resulted in higher <br />readings. <br />Surface soil moisture readings were also taken biweekly through the <br />use of a calcium carbide, gas pressure, moisture tester. Oata taken from <br />the 18 stations (one station per replicate per panel) shows that the sur- <br />face moisture response was similar to that of subsurface noisture <br />(Appendix B, Figure 3). <br />Panel 6 had the highest surface soil moisture readings while Panel 4 <br />had the lowest. The high readings on Panel 6 for surface soil moisture <br />are most likely caused by the presence of the capillary gravel barrier in <br />the profile. The relatively high surface soil moisture readings on <br />Panel 2 can be explained in part by the change in texture between the <br />soil and underlying shale material. This textural change between the two <br />materials would tend to restrict water flow and keep more moisture in the <br /> <br /> <br />