Journal of Hydrology 290 (2004) 152160

www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

A single well pumping and recovery test to measure in situ

acrotelm transmissivity in raised bogs
S. van der Schaaf*
Department of Environmental Sciences, Sub-department of Water Resources, Wageningen University,
Nieuwe Kanaal 11, 6709PA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Received 8 April 2003; revised 14 November 2003; accepted 10 December 2003

Abstract
A quasi-steady-state single pit pumping and recovery test to measure in situ the transmissivity of the highly permeable upper
layer of raised bogs, the acrotelm, is described and discussed. The basic concept is the expanding depression cone during both
pumping and recovery. It is shown that applying this concept yields comparable results from pumping test and recovery,
although the flexibility of the acrotelm matrix may cause considerable differences during individual tests.
q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Raised bogs; Acrotelm; Transmissivity; Pumping tests; Peat hydraulics

1. Introduction
The acrotelm is the shallow top layer of a living
raised bog. It includes the living peat moss at the
surface. In bogs of north-western Europe it is usually
between 10 and 40 cm deep. In its original concept, it
contains the oscillating water table (Ivanov, 1953;
cited by Ingram, 1978) and hence has rapidly
changing moisture conditions. Thus it is periodically
aerated, which causes a relatively rapid downward
increase in the degree of decomposition of its material
(Romanov, 1968). The term acrotelm was proposed
by Ingram (1978) and has become generally accepted
since. The peat body below the acrotelm is termed
catotelm. This so-called diplotelmic approach does
not imply a division into two soil horizons in the strict
* Fax: 31-317-484885.
E-mail address: sake.vanderschaaf@wur.nl (S. van der Schaaf).
0022-1694/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.005

sense, because the boundary between acrotelm and

catotelm is not defined in a measurable and reproducible way. However, the diplotelmic approach has
proved a useful concept in understanding the
hydrology of raised bogs (Ingram and Bragg, 1984;
Van der Schaaf, 1996, 1998, 1999).
A hydrologically relevant feature of the acrotelm is
the downward increase in the degree of decomposition, which implies a downward decrease in fiber
elasticity, an increase in the volume fraction of small
particles and hence a transition from large pores at the
surface to smaller pores downwards. Consequently, a
transition occurs from a large hydraulic conductivity
near the surface to considerably smaller values at
some decimeter depth. The difference may be up to
several orders of magnitude (Balyasova, 1979;
Ivanov, 1981). Some rather common values are
105 m d21 or larger close to the surface and
1 10 m d21 at some decimeters below it. The average

S. van der Schaaf / Journal of Hydrology 290 (2004) 152160

hydraulic conductivity of the catotelm is usually some

orders of magnitude smaller (Van der Schaaf, 1999).
Thus, in spite of its shallowness, the acrotelm is the
one and only aquifer in a raised bog. Because of the
sharp downward decrease in the hydraulic conductivity, the transmissivity of the acrotelm strongly
depends on the level of the water table and is a
regulating system for the outflow of water from a
raised bog (Verry et al., 1988; Van der Schaaf, 1999).
Hence, in hydrological studies of raised bogs,
information on transmissivity characteristics of the
acrotelm is almost indispensable.
The method to measure acrotelm transmissivity
described here was developed because classic
methods, such as Hooghoudts and Ernsts augerhole
method (Van Beers, 1963) could not be used because
the auger hole often filled up with water within a
second after water removal. Therefore a method was
developed, which is based on pumping during the test
instead of one where water is removed or added at the
start only.

2. Description of the tests

Square pits of approximately 25 25 40 cm3
deep were cut with a spade at different locations on
the bogs Raheenmore Bog and Clara Bog, both in
Co. Offaly, Ireland. The pits were left to settle for at
least a day before tests were carried out. At each test,
the pit was pumped during 20 s to 5 min at a
constant rate of 1 10 l min21, depending on the
expected transmissivity and the expected drawdown
during the test. The small pump was a 12 V batterypowered centrifuge type and a sieve was used to
prevent large peat particles in the pit from clogging
the pump (Fig. 1).
The discharge was controlled by connecting
different pre-calibrated lengths and diameters of
polythene tubing to the outlet of the pump. The
discharge was checked during tests with a calibrated
vessel and a stopwatch. The drawdown in the pit
should remain within a few centimeters from the
equilibrium level to prevent too much of the upper and
most permeable part of the acrotelm from being
excluded from the flow. Otherwise, a considerable
underestimation of the transmissivity might result.
Therefore, pumping was continued either until no

153

Fig. 1. Pumping test as carried out during the fieldwork.

visible further drawdown occurred, or until the

drawdown had reached a value of 3 cm. In the latter
case the water table in the pit would often continue to
fall if the pumping was not stopped, because the flow
towards the pit would occur in less and less permeable
parts of the acrotelm. After the pumping had been
stopped, the water table in the pit would rise again and
a recovery test was done. Therefore, two sets of
equations had to be derived: one for the pumping test
itself and one for the recovery test.

3. Equations
3.1. The pumping test
Pumping until no visible further drawdown occurs
does not necessarily mean that steady state has been
attained. Therefore, the steady-state Thiem equation
was used as a basis to derive an equation to calculate
acrotelm transmissivity from the tests. Strictly speaking, this may not be entirely justified, because during
any such test the depression cone will keep expanding. However, close to the pit, the hydraulic gradient
does not change very much shortly after pumping
has started. This situation is termed transient steady
state by Kruseman and Ridder (1990). In this paper,
the usage of Thiems equation will be discussed later.

154

S. van der Schaaf / Journal of Hydrology 290 (2004) 152160

At this stage, the equation is applied without further

comment. It reads
Q

2pTa h2 2 h1
r
ln 2
r1

Substituting r1 ; h1 and h2 in Eq. (1) and writing Ta

explicitly yields:
r2
rw
Ta
2pyw
Q ln

where Q is well discharge (pumping rate) [L3T21], Ta

is acrotelm transmissivity [L2T21], h1 is phreatic level
[L] at a distance r1 [L] from the well and h2 is the
phreatic level at a distance r2 from the well.
Eq. (1) holds approximately if (Kruseman and
Ridder, 1990):

Because the horizontal cross-section of the spade-dug

wells was approximately square, an effective rw was
to be found. This could be done by either calculating
the radius of a circle with the same area, which gives
an underestimation, or one with the same circumference, which gives an overestimation. Averaging the
two yields

(a) the lateral extent of the aquifer is much larger

than the distance to which the phreatic level is
noticeably affected by the drawdown in the well;
(b) the aquifer is homogeneous in the horizontal
direction over the area in which the phreatic level
is noticeably influenced by the drawdown in the
well;
(c) the phreatic level was approximately horizontal
immediately before the test;
(d) the discharge rate was constant during the test;
(e) the well fully penetrates the aquifer;
(f) the flow is horizontal;
(g) the saturated depth of the acrotelm aquifer is
constant over the area in which the phreatic level
is noticeably affected by the drawdown in the
well.

L
2L
p
p
p
< 0:6L
rw <
2

Conditions (a), (c), (d), and (e) are normally

satisfied. Condition (b) is usually satisfied to a
reasonable extent if the site is properly chosen, e.g.
as much as possible in the middle of a microtopographical element, such as a hollow or a hummock.
Conditions (f) and (g) can be satisfied approximately
by keeping the drawdown in the well small, as
discussed in Section 2.
In Eq. (1), both r1 and r2 may be chosen arbitrarily,
as long as r1 r2 and at least equal to the well radius
rw : Hence, the radius r1 can be substituted by rw : If h2
is the phreatic level immediately before the test, then
r2 is the distance to which the effect of the pumping
has extended. Theoretically this distance should be
infinite, but if the equation is combined with the
pumped volume of water, it will yield a finite value
for r2 ; as will be shown below. Then the difference
h2 2 h1 is the drawdown yw [L] in the well.

where L is the length of one side of the square pit [L].

Now the only remaining unknown, apart from Ta ;
is r2 : Its value can be estimated as the radius of the
depression cone that can be calculated from the
volume of water V [L3] removed from the well:
V Qt

where t is pumping time [T].

If the pumped water is discharged at a sufficient
distance (for example 3 m or more) from the well, V is
equal to the sum of the loss of water volume from the
well and the water volume released from the
depression cone around the well. An additional
assumption here is the immediate release of the
drainable water above the water table. The value of r2
is then found from
r2
Qt prw2 yw 2pm
ryrdr
5
rw

where m is the dimensionless storage coefficient and

yr is the drawdown [L] at a distance r from the
center of the well.
An expression for y is found from Eq. (2):
r2
r
yr
2pTa
Q ln

2a

Substituting yr in Eq. (5) using Eq. (2a) yields:

mQ r2
r
6
Qt prw2 yw
r ln 2 dr
Ta rw
r

S. van der Schaaf / Journal of Hydrology 290 (2004) 152160

This implies the assumption that the flux Q is

independent of r: This assumption is reasonable for
at least the near surroundings of the pit if the
drawdown in the pit has become approximately
constant. Integration yields:


mQ 2
r
Qt prw2 yw
r2 2 rw2 2 2rw2 ln 2
7
4Ta
rw
If m is known, Eqs. (2) and (7) form a system of two
equations with two unknowns, Ta and r2 : Substituting
Ta in Eq. (7) using Eq. (2) yields:


mpyw 2
r2
2
2
2
Qt prw yw
8
r r2 2 rw 2 2rw ln r
w
2 ln 2
rw
If the ratio r2 =rw is replaced by the symbol nw ; Eq. (8)
can be simplified to
!
prw2 yw
mn2w 2 2 ln nw 2 1
1
9
t
2 ln nw
Q
The value of nw cannot be expressed explicitly using
Eq. (9), but it can be found either graphically by
plotting nw versus t for a known Q; m; and yw or by
iteration.
3.2. The recovery test
The applied testing method was based on the socalled pit bailing method, described by Bouwer and
Rice (1983). The basic equation, which has also been
derived from Thiems equation, can be written as
k

rw2 ln nw dh
h20 2 h2w dt

10

where h0 is water depth [L] in the pit before water

removal and hw water depth [L] in the pit during
the test.
Healy and Laak (1973), cited by Bouwer and Rice,
(1983) assumed nw 4: Bouwer and Rice compared
the pit bailing method with nw 4 and the piezometer
method. They concluded that both methods give
comparable results as long as the distance between the
bottom of the pit and an underlying impervious layer
is not large compared to the diameter of the pit. In
acrotelm pits with sufficient depth (30 50 cm,
depending on the situation), this condition is nearly
always met.

155

The wetted depth Dp of the pit during the test can

be approximated by
Dp <

h0 hw
2

11

The value of k as calculated from Eq. (10) is

the effective k over the pit depth. As long as the
bottom of the pit is in the catotelm or near the
bottom of the acrotelm, the assumptions Ta kDp and
yw h0 2 hw are reasonable. Eq. (10) then becomes
Ta 2

rw2 ln nw dy
2yw dt

12

If the test is done as a recovery test after the pumping

test, the initial value of nw is known from the pumping
test. If the test was stopped because the water table
kept falling, nw may still be calculated using Eq. (9).
As the water level in the pit recovers, the
depression cone keeps expanding laterally. If a
constant total emptied storage volume in the cone
and the emptied part of the pit is assumed, nw is a
function of the discharged volume V; yw ; rw and m:
From Eqs. (4) and (9) one can derive:
!
mn2w 2 2 ln nw 2 1
2
13
V prw yw 1
2 ln nw
Ta can now be calculated over different time intervals
during the recovery if in Eq. (12) dy and dt are
replaced by Dy and Dt; respectively. The final value is
then found by averaging the results of consecutive
time intervals.
Alternatively, if the change in ln nw during the
recovery is relatively small (the already mentioned
assumption by Healy and Laak), a curve fitting
procedure can be followed. For this purpose, Eq.
(12) must be integrated. After solving the integration
constant for recovery time tr 0; the integral yields:
Ta <

rw2 ln nw yw0
ln
2tr
yw

14

where tr is recovery time [T] and yw0 is drawdown [L]

in the well at the beginning of the recovery test, when
tr 0:
Eq. (14) strongly resembles the equation that
applies to the piezometer method, which is often
used to measure hydraulic conductivity in soils
(Kirkham, 1945; Luthin and Kirkham, 1949; Smiles

156

S. van der Schaaf / Journal of Hydrology 290 (2004) 152160

and Youngs, 1965; Amoozegar and Warrick, 1986).

It reads
k

prp2
y
ln i
Ap ti1 2 ti yi1

15

where k is hydraulic conductivity [LT21], rp is the

inner radius [L] of the piezometer tube, Ap a shape
factor [L], depending on filter (cavity) length and
diameter, its depth below the water table and its
distance to an underlying impervious or infinitely
conductive layer, yi is the difference between the level
in the tube [L] at equilibrium and at time ti [T] after
the beginning of the test, yi1 is the difference
between the level in the tube at equilibrium and at
time ti1 after the beginning of the test [L].
Replacing yw0 in Eq. (14) by yi ; yw by yi1 ; tr by
ti1 2 ti and Ta by kDp yields an equation to obtain a
value for the shape factor Ap :
Ap

2pDp
ln nw

16

Eq. (14) may be solved graphically by plotting

lnyw0 =yw against t: The tangent of the angle of the
line and the t-axis is the value of 2Ta =rw2 ln nw : Linear
regression is another option, but a graph should be
made to check whether the curve sufficiently
approaches a straight line.
In situations in which the transmissivity is too low
to apply the quasi-steady-state pumping test, the
recovery method is the only option. However, nw can
still be estimated from Eq. 3.24, but the result is likely
to be less accurate as pumping time has been shorter.

4. Testing the methods

The most reliable way to test the described
methods would have been taking a number of
monoliths and to measure acrotelm transmissivity in
the laboratory as described by Romanov (1968) and
repeated for a few monoliths by Bragg (Ingram and
Bragg, 1984). However, such facilities were not
available. Hence, testing had to be restricted to
comparing results from the pumping and recovery
tests.
When comparing the pumping test and the
recovery test, the concept of the expanding depression

cone (increasing nw ) during the tests is the essential

component of the approach to both. Since both rely on
different values of nw ; this should be considered the
second best option. As a further check as to whether
the assumption of a constant nw during the recovery
test might be realistic, the piezometer method with a
constant shape factor Ap as extrapolated from
Youngs tables, presented by Amoozegar and Warrick
(1986) was used.
The results of 178 tests were compared using
simple linear regression. A remark on the regression
method before results are presented is appropriate,
since a somewhat unusual method was applied.
The most commonly used method of linear
regression is the one, which minimises the sum of
squares of the difference between the dependent
variable and the regression line. This method should
preferably not be applied here, because it implicitly
assumes that the independent variable is exactly
known and is not drawn from a probability
distribution. As a result, the obtained statistical
relationship depends on which of the two variables
is supposed to be the dependent and which is the
independent one. The difference between both results
increases with a decreasing correlation coefficient.
Because values of Ta obtained from different tests are
to be compared and are likely to have been drawn
from similar probability distributions, there is no good
reason for such a distinction. This problem may be
solved using a type of regression in which not the sum
of squares of deviations of the independent variable is
minimized, but the sum of the products of deviations
of both, as described by Kermack and Haldane (1950)
and termed method of reduced major axis. An
additional advantage of this method is that the
distribution of estimated y from the regression
model not only has the same mean (as in classic
regression), but also the same variance as the set of
measured y; from which the relationship was derived.
The applied values of the storage coefficient m
varied between 0.25 and 0.3, depending on the water
level in the pit. The relationship was based on results
of two 1-year experiments with 15 and 16 small
weighable lysimeters, one on each bog, which both
yielded an approximately linear average relationship
between phreatic level and m (Van der Schaaf, 1999).
The value of the storage coefficient and its effect on
the results will be discussed later.

S. van der Schaaf / Journal of Hydrology 290 (2004) 152160

157

Fig. 2. Acrotelm transmissivities Ta from the recovery test

(modified pit bailing method) versus those from the quasi-steadystate test. Logarithms are based on Ta -values in m2 d21.

Fig. 3. Acrotelm transmissivities Ta from the piezometer

method versus those from the recovery test (modified pit bailing
method).

Fig. 2 shows a scatter plot of Ta derived from the

modified pit bailing method (Eqs. (12) and (13))
versus Ta from the quasi-steady-state test, with a fitted
regression line. The relationship has an acceptable
statistical significance, shows no significant intercept
and a near 1:1 ratio between both results, albeit with a
tendency to slightly smaller values from the modified
pit bailing method.
The relationship of the results obtained from the
recovery test using Eqs. (15) and (16) (piezometer
method) versus those from the modified pit bailing
method with a constant shape factor Ap according to
Eq. (16) is shown in Fig. 3. The relationship deviates
clearly from 1:1, with the piezometer method yielding
the smaller values of Ta : On average, the piezometer
method yields values of Ta ; which are 1.5 2.5 times
as small as corresponding values calculated by the
equations for the pit bailing method. This difference
must be attributed to the expanding depression cone
around the pit, which is accounted for in the recovery
method, but not in the piezometer method. Because at
large Ta the depression cone expands more rapidly
than at small Ta ; this also explains why at larger values
of Ta the ratio between the results tends to increase.
However, the scatter of the points in Fig. 3 is
considerably smaller than in Fig. 2.

As an additional test, a non-steady numerical

simulation of the flow during the quasi-steady-state
test was applied on two small data sets, which were
not involved in the comparison between the quasisteady-state method and the recovery test. One was
from Raheenmore Bog and consisted of 22 values
ranging from 10 to 2000 m2 d21, the other from
Mannikjarve Bog (Estonia), with 18 values ranging
from 15 to 180 m2 d21. The simulation result for
Raheenmore Bog was a Ta that was on average 91% of
the calculated value, the one for Mannikjarve Bog
gave 94%, with r 2 . 0:99 for both. This suggests a
systematic overestimation of Ta by no more than
about 5 10% when the quasi-steady-state method is
applied.

5. Discussion
As mentioned, the usage of Thiems equation
needs some discussion. The main point is the
question, whether the equation is applicable in
a basically non-steady or not entirely steady situation
as described, without causing unacceptable errors.
One should be aware that in a field situation the spatial

158

S. van der Schaaf / Journal of Hydrology 290 (2004) 152160

variability of the material is usually so large that a

very strict approach to pumping tests and their
associated equations makes little sense. Variations
of Ta by a factor of 2 or more over horizontal distances
of a few meters are usually the rule rather than the
exception. Although the results of the numerical
simulations suggest a slight overestimation of Ta as a
result of Thiems equation having been applied
somewhat loosely, it is negligible compared to such
variations.
Transient changes in the flexible peat matrix,
induced by the test itself, are other sources of error
that justify using Thiems equation in a situation that
does not fully comply with its underlying assumptions. In addition, at least part of the difference
between the results of the quasi-steady-state test and
the described recovery test may be explained if one
assumes that during the tests the apparent transmissivity of the acrotelm may change as a result of
deformation of the acrotelm matrix caused by the
suction that resulted from pumping the pit. Such
apparent non-linearities have been reported in literature rather frequently, although mostly for tests in the
catotelm (Galvin and Hanrahan, 1967; Rycroft et al.,
1975a,b; Ingram et al., 1974; Hemond and Goldman,
1985; Waine et al., 1985; Van der Schaaf, 1999).
Since pumping causes a certain suction on the peat
around the pit and suction usually causes a lowering
of the hydraulic conductivity of peat, including the
acrotelm (Galvin and Hanrahan, 1967; Van der
Schaaf, 1999), it would not be unreasonable to
consider using the largest resulting Ta from either
quasi-steady-state method or modified pit bailing
method as the best approximation to the real value.

The concept of the expanding depression cone in

the recovery test gives results that are in better
agreement with those of the quasi-steady-state method
and its numerical simulation than the piezometer
method, which assumes a time-invariant cone size.
Much of the difference should probably be attributed
to the relatively large transmissivity of the acrotelm,
which causes a shallow depression cone with a rapid
lateral expansion. The lateral expansion during the
recovery is illustrated in the change in nw in Table 1.
However, in less permeable material, where
a depression cone would be steeper and would expand
at a slower rate, the effect may be much less
pronounced.
A value of the storage coefficient m is needed in all
methods. From lysimeter tests on both bogs, it was
found to be between 0.2 and 0.4, depending on the
depth of the acrotelm and of the water table, which
varied between 0 and 15 cm below the surface (Van
der Schaaf, 1999). If the short duration of the tests is
taken into account, a lower value is justified, because
it is likely that storage coefficients based on changes
in storage due to a falling water level over short
periods of up to 10 min will be smaller than those
obtained over periods of several days. This implies a
limited validity of the assumption of immediate
release of water from storage during the test.
However, the calculated value of Ta is not sensitive
to m; as is illustrated by two examples from Clara Bog
(Table 1). Doubling m from 0.2 to 0.4 results in a
decrease in calculated Ta by about 20%. The example
also shows that values of nw 4 as used by Healy and
Laak (cited by Bouwer and Rice, 1983) are not very
realistic in tests as described in this paper.

Table 1
Calculated acrotelm transmissivities Ta resulting from a pumping test and following recovery (modified pit bailing method) at two assumed
values of the storage coefficient m: Horizontal cross-section of the pits: 0.053 m2 (pit 1) and 0.048 m2 (pit 2). Pumping time t : 70 and 35 s,
respectively. Pumping rate Q 0:11 l s21 in both tests. Drawdown yw at end of pumping: 2.8 and 2.2 cm, respectively
Pumping test

Storage coefficient m

Calculated value of nw at end of test

Transmissivity Ta (m2 d21)

Recovery (seven intervals of 5 s during 35 s

immediately after pumping had ended)

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.4

Pit 1

Pit 2

Pit 1

Pit 2

Pit 1

Pit 2

Pit 1

Pit 2

10.2
127

7.7
142

6.7
104

5.1
113

28.0
93

37.9
135

18.7
80

25.3
117

S. van der Schaaf / Journal of Hydrology 290 (2004) 152160

However, the larger scatter in Fig. 2, which is the

diagram that compares both methods which take the
cone expansion into account, compared to Fig. 3, which
compares methods with and without assumed cone
expansion, seems rather odd in view of the fundamental
difference between the concepts of the latter two.
Where an approximately steady situation was not
reached within a drawdown of up to about 3 cm, the
water table usually kept falling. In such situations, the
modified pit-bailing method still seemed applicable,
but could not be tested against the quasi-steady-state
method. However, in degraded peat with a low
hydraulic conductivity and hence a low transmissivity
(generally values below about 1 2 m2 d21), the result
became very sensitive to errors in rw and the
calculated value of nw could even become less than
1, which is physically impossible. Obviously in such
situations, Thiems equation is an inadequate description of the flow system. Instead of the modified pitbailing method, Hooghoudts auger-hole method
(Van Beers, 1963; Boast and Kirkham, 1971; Bouwer
and Rice, 1983) should provide a more adequate
solution in such cases.

6. Conclusions
The piezometer method with its implicit assumption of a fixed diameter of the depression cone yields
considerably smaller transmissivity values than both
the quasi-steady-state and the modified pit-bailing
method. The latter two give results, which are on
average in good agreement with one another, even
though at individual pits rather large differences may
occur. The results of the quasi-steady-state method are
in good agreement with simulation results. This shows
that the concept of the expanding depression cone is
essential in obtaining reasonably consistent results. In
fact, the described solutions combine contradictory
assumptions inherent to steady and non-steady state.
Close to the pumped pit, where the largest drawdown
occurs, it seems that the basic assumption of the
applied Thiem equation, being a flux, which is
independent of the distance from the pit, is met to a
sufficient extent to justify usage of the equation.
Differences between results from the quasi-steadystate method and the modified pit bailing method
should mostly be attributed to effects of the flexible

159

soil matrix on calculated transmissivity. When

comparing results from both calculations, the fitted
relationship is almost 1:1 with a zero intercept, which
indicates that the applied assumptions are reasonable
in the given situation.
Calculated transmissivity values show a relatively
small sensitivity to differences in the storage coefficient m; which means that m does not need to be
known with high accuracy.
The presented method is not applicable in degraded
peat with a transmissivity of approximately
1 2 m2 d21 or less.

References
Amoozegar, A., Warrick, A.W., 1986. Hydraulic conductivity of
saturated soils: field methods. In: Klute, A., (Ed.), Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods,
second ed., Series Agronomy 9(1), Am. Soc. Agron., Soil Sci.
Soc. Am., Madison, Wis., pp. 735 798.
Balyasova, Ye.L., 1979. Methods for estimating the reliability of
experimentally determined major hydrologic characteristics of
bogs. Soviet Hydrol.: Sel. Pap. 18 (2), 117123.
Boast, C.W., Kirkham, D., 1971. Auger hole seepage theory. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35, 365373.
Bouwer, H., Rice, R.C., 1983. The pit bailing method for hydraulic
conductivity measurement of isotropic or anisotropic soil.
Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engng 1983, 14351439.
Galvin, L.F., Hanrahan, E.T., 1967. Steady State Drainage Flow in
Peat. Highway Research Record 203. Highway Research Board,
Nat. Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 7786.
Hemond, H.F., Goldman, J.C., 1985. On non-Darcyan water flow in
peat. J. Ecol. 73, 579 584.
Ingram, H.A.P., 1978. Soil layers in mires: function and
terminology. J. Soil Sci. 29 (2), 224 227.
Ingram, H.A.P., Bragg, O.M., 1984. The diplotelmic mire: some
hydrological consequences reviewed. Proceedings of the
Seventh International Peat Congress Dublin, 18 23 June
1984, vol. 1. The International Peat Society, Helsinki, Finland,
pp. 220234.
Ingram, H.A.P., Rycroft, D.W., Williams, D.J.A., 1974. Anomalous
transmission of water through certain peats. J. Hydrol. 22,
213 218.
Ivanov, K.E., 1981. Water Movement in Mirelands. Academic
Press, New York, 276 pp.
Kermack, K.A., Haldane, J.B.S., 1950. Organic correlation and
allometry. Biometrika 37, 30 41.
Kirkham, D., 1945. Proposed method for field measurement of
permeability of soil below the water table. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. 10, 58 68.
Kruseman, G.P., Ridder, N.A. de, 1990, second ed., Analysis and
Evaluation of Pumping Test Data, vol. 47. ILRI Publ.,
Wageningen, 377 pp.

160

S. van der Schaaf / Journal of Hydrology 290 (2004) 152160

Luthin, J.N., Kirkham, D., 1949. A piezometer method for

measuring permeability of soil in situ below a water table.
Soil Sci. 68, 349358.
Romanov, V.V., 1968. Hydrophysics of Bogs. Israel Program of
Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 299 pp.
Rycroft, D.W., Williams, D.J.A., Ingram, H.A.P., 1975a. The
transmission of water through peat. I. Review. J. Ecol. 63,
535556.
Rycroft, D.W., Williams, D.J.A., Ingram, H.A.P., 1975b. The
transmission of water through peat. II. Field experiments.
J. Ecol. 63, 557 568.
Smiles, D.E., Youngs, E.G., 1965. Hydraulic conductivity determination by several field methods in a sand tank. Soil Sci. 99, 8387.
Van Beers, W.F.J., 1963. The auger-hole method. A field
measurement of the hydraulic conductivity of soil below the
water table. Int. Inst. Land Recl. Impr. ILRI Bull. 1, 32.
Van der Schaaf, S., 1996. Acrotelm conditions in two Irish
Midlands raised bogs as affected by surface slope and superficial
drainage. In: Luttig, G.W. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th

International Peat congress. Peatlands UsePresent, Past and

Future, vol. 2: 121127. Schweitzerbart, Stuttgart.
Van der Schaaf, S., 1998. Self regulation of acrotelm transmissivity
and discharge in two Irish Midland raised bogs. In: Malterer, T.,
Johnson, K., Stewart, J. (Eds.). Peatland restoration and
Reclamation. Techniques and Regulatory Considerations.
Proceedings of the International Peat Symposium, Duluth,
Minnesota, USA, 1418 July 1998, pp. 161 169.
Van der Schaaf, S., 1999. Analysis of the hydrology of raised
bogs in the Irish Midlands. A case study of Raheenmore
Bog and Clara Bog. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University,
375 pp.
Verry, E.S., Brooks, K.N., Barten, P.K., 1988. Streamflow response
from an ombrotrophic mire. Symp. Hyd. of Wetlands in the
temperate and cold regions, Joensuu, Finland 6 8 June 1988,
vol. 1. pp. 5259. Publ. Acad. Finl. 4/1988.
Waine, J., Brown, J.M.B., Ingram, H.A.P., 1985. Non-Darcyan
transmission of water in certain humified peats. J. Hydrol. 82,
327 339.