European Journal of Soil Science, June 1995, 46, 233-238

Use and accuracy of the filter-paper technique for measurement

of soil matric potential
R.N. DEKA*, M. WAIRIUS, P.W. MTAKWAg, C.E. MULLINS, E.M. VEENENDAAL & J . T O W N E N D
Department of Plant & Soil Science, Meston Building, Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, AB92UE, U K

Summary
A filter-paper technique that can be used to measure the matric potential of field soil is described in
detail. When a calibrated batch of filter papers is used, the precision is limited by the variability
between individual papers and the limitation of weighing to the nearest mg. The absolute accuracy
is also limited by the instruments used for calibration. There was reasonable agreement between
batches of the same type of paper, suggesting that our generalized calibration curves can be used
for Whatman No. 42 filter papers where accuracy is not paramount.
For potentials 2 - 2.5 MPa, papers need to be equilibrated with the soil for 6 d. To achieve the
same accuracy at lower potentials longer equilibration periods are required. Results suggest that the
technique should be effective down to at least - 100 MPa if soils are allowed to equilibrate fully
with the papers. Coefficients of determination (r2) for the calibration lines were all 20.92. A
regression of log( -matric potential) measured by the filter paper technique against measurements
made using tensiometers and a psychrometer over a range of potentials between -1 kPa and
- 10 MPa gave an r2 value of 0.995.

Introduction Methods
The filter-paper technique was first used by Gardner (1937) as Principle
a method for measuring the soil-water release characteristic.
The method consists of placing filter paper in contact with
Since then, its use as a technique for measuring soil matric
soil, or a soil sample, until equilibrium is reached. The
potential has been studied in detail, mainly in Australia
gravimetric water content of the paper is then determined
(Mullins, 1991). Despite its simplicity, its limited equipment
and this is converted to matric potential using a calibration
requirements, and the wide range of potentials that can be
curve.
measured (from - 1 kPa to - 100 MPa) (Fawcett & Collis-
George, 1967), the technique has not been widely used. A
principal reason for this is probably that there has been no Calibration
published independent test of the accuracy and sensitivity of
The study was performed using sets of 55-mm diameter filter
the technique other than a single point check by Greacen et al.
papers taken from four separate batches of Whatman No. 42
(1987). In addition, until recently (Greacen et al., 1989),
and one set from a single batch of Whatman No. 1 filter
researchers have not been able to refer to a standard technique.
papers. For high matric potentials ( - 1 to - 65 kPa), papers
The aims of this paper are: (i) to provide details of the filter
were calibrated on a tension table which had a flat porous
paper technique that we use for field measurement of matric
ceramic plate (Greacen et al., 1987) in a constant temperature
potential, (ii) to report an independent test of the accuracy of
room at 21 f 1°C. The tension table was set to the desired
this technique, and (iii) to discuss the limitations to accuracy
potential for at least 8 h. Ten papers from an individual batch
that can be expected to apply in practice.
were then laid out next to each other on the ceramic plate, and
covered with a polyethylene sheet, a thick sheet of glass, and
Present addresses: *Department of Soil Science, BN College of Agri- a set of weights evenly distributed to apply a pressure of
culture, Biswanath, Assam PIN-784176, India. $Dodo Creek Research
approximately 1.5 kPa. The whola assembly was covered to
Station, Ministry of Agriculture & Lands, P.O. Box (313, Honiara,
Solomon Islands. §Department of Soil Science, Sokoine University of prevent evaporation and allowed to equilibrate for 6 d. This
Agriculture, P.O. Box 3008, Morogoro, Tanzania. procedure ensured that the papers were equilibrated on a
Received 26 October 1994; revised version accepted 18 January 1995 wetting curve, as is the case when a filter paper is equilibrated
Correspondence: Dr C.E. Mullins with a soil sample.

0 1995 Blackwell Science Ltd. 233

234 R.N. Deka et al.
The papers were then removed with tweezers one by one
and either weighed immediately or transferred to weighing
bottles, sealed and weighed shortly afterwards. Because filter
papers rapidly lose water, those papers remaining on the
tension table were kept covered by the plastic sheet until
removal. Immediate weighing or transfer to, and closing of, the
weighing bottles was performed within 20 s. After drying
overnight at 105°C the papers (and weighing bottles if
appropriate) were re-weighed and the gravimetric water
content of the filter papers determined. All weighings were
carried out to an accuracy of _+ 0.2 mg. Calibration was carried
out at least three different matric potentials between - 1 and
-65 kPa for the batch of Whatman No. 1 and three of the
batches of Whatman No. 42 filter papers.
Calibration at matric potentials over the range -250 kPa to
- 100 MPa was carried out for the batch of Whatman No. 1
and three of the batches of Whatman No. 42 filter papers using
a thermocouple psychrometer (SC- IOA, Decagon Devices Inc.,
Pullman, WA, USA). Water contents of the papers at different
matric potentials were estimated from the calibration given by
Fawcett & Collis-George (1967). Double the calculated
volumes of distilled water were added to individual papers
using a micro-pipette. Sets of five papers from a single batch,
each with the same volume of water added, were stacked
inside 150-cm3 plastic jars with a plastic disc at the top and
bottom and a 100 g mass on top (giving a pressure of about
400 Pa). The jars were sealed and stored at constant
temperature (21 f 1°C) for 7 d. The jars were then opened
and further sets of five, air-dry, papers from the same batches
were quickly placed alternately with the pre-wetted papers into
the stacks. The jars were re-sealed and stored for a further 7 d
at constant temperature. During this period the initial sets of
papers were thus equilibrating on a drying curve whereas the
later sets were on a wetting curve (as used in field
measurements). This allowed us to test for hysteresis.
The psychrometer measurements were conducted in the
same constant temperature room. The Decagon device was
calibrated using twelve standard salt solutions (Greenspan,
1977). The papers were removed from the jars one at a time
and the jars kept closed between times. Each paper was folded
four times to create a strip, 11 mm wide, which was then rolled
up, placed in one of the metal sample cups and immediately put
into the sample changer. After measuring the water potential,
each paper was quickly weighed, and then re-weighed after
drying overnight at 105°C to determine its water content. At
least 40 papers per batch were used, equilibrated at at least four
target matric potentials between - 250 kPa and - 120 MPa.
Soil sampling technique, equilibration time and measurement
of filter paper water content
The following standard technique is based on the comments of
previous authors (Fawcett & Collis-George, 1967; McQueen &
Miller, 1968; Al-Khafaf & Hanks, 1974; Hamblin, 1981;
0 1995 Blackwell Science Ltd, European Journal of Soil Science, 46, 233-239
Greacen et al., 1987; Griffith et al., 1991) and our own trials,
aimed at establishing an accurate and reliable methodology for
use both in laboratory and field experiments.
Each sample was taken by half-filling a 64-mm diameter,
50-mm tall (150 cm3) plastic jar with loose soil, placing one
labelled filter paper centrally on top of the soil and adding
further soil, just sufficient to fill the jar when the lid was
screwed down. The jars were taped with masking tape to
minimize water loss and immediately placed in a thermally
insulated box to avoid thermal distillation once the tempera-
ture in the box had stabilised. The insulated box was placed on
top of a 50-mm thick sheet of expanded polystyrene and stored
in a shaded draught-free location (e.g. a cupboard) for 6 d.
The dimensions of the jar were chosen so that the water
absorbed by the filter paper was a negligible proportion of that
in the soil. In addition, the filter papers fitted the containers
without touching the sides so that any thermal distillation that
may have occurred immediately after the jar was first placed in
the insulated box did not wet the papers.
After equilibration, the soil in each container was emptied
onto a dish and the filter paper was removed with tweezers.
Any soil adhering to the paper was lightly brushed off and the
paper was either placed into a weighing bottle and sealed or
weighed immediately. The whole procedure took less than 30 s
and was performed inside a large box lined with moist paper
towels to maintain high humidity and avoid draughts and hence
minimize water loss from the papers. Gravimetric water
contents of the filter papers were determined as already
described. All weighings were made to an accuracy of rfi 1 mg
or better.
Test of accuracy with soil at high matric potentials
Three bins, 450 mm in diameter and 550 mm deep (87.5 dm3),
were uniformly packed with a sieved ( < 2 mm) sandy loam,
pre-wetted to give matric potentials of c. -2, -20, or -50
kPa. Duplicate mercury manometer tensiometers (Webster,
1966), installed at 150-mm depth in each bin, were monitored
to indicate when the soil had reached equilibrium and then
used to provide an accurate measurement of its matric
potential. The bins were kept out of direct sunlight in a
laboratory at approximately 20°C. After equilibrium had been
reached the duplicate tensiometers agreed to within 0.25 kPa,
the limits of their accuracy (Mullins, 1991). The tensiometers
were then removed and soil was removed to a depth of
140 mm. Twelve soil samples were taken from 140-160 mm
depth for filter paper measurement using our previously
described standard sampling procedure. Four samples per
matric potential were removed from the insulated box after
each of 2, 4 and 6 d and the water contents of the filter
papers measured to determine the effect of equilibration
period on the results. To avoid bias, one of each set of
samples was taken from each quadrant in the original
sampling plane in the bins.
 Measuring matric potential using filter paper 235

Test of accuracy with soil at low matric potentials extrapolated to meet that for higher potentials. For the higher
range of matric potentials, qrnwas controlled using a tension
Three trays of soil (sandy clay loam), 300 x 200 x 70 mm deep,
table. There was considerable variation in the water content of
were wetted with a spray to achieve gravimetric water contents
individual papers from a single batch at a constant matric
of c. 0.07, 0.075 and 0.09 g g-'. These were sealed in
potential (Fig. 1). Because this variability was greater than the
polyethylene bags and left to equilibrate in a shaded location
accuracy of water content measurements it is attributable to
for 6 weeks. Four soil samples were collected from each tray
inherent variation between the properties of individual filter
using the standard sampling procedure. A small sub-sample
papers. For the lower range of potentials, variabilities between
(0.5 cm3) was taken from each jar before sealing and placed in
water contents and between matric potentials were also greater
the sample changer of the thermocouple psychrometer to
than their respective measurement accuracies and indicate
determine its water potential at the time of sampling. After
inherent variations in the properties of individual papers. We,
storing for 6 d the jars were opened and the water contents of
therefore, regressed water content on loglo( - &,) for both the
the filter papers determined using the standard procedure.
high and low potential ranges. In all regression equations, the
units of M and $, were g g-' and kPa, respectively.
Results The 95% confidence intervals for a prediction of log( - +,)
from a further measurement of M were calculated using the
Sensitivity and accuracy of measuring techniques
equations given by Webster (1989). These were equivalent to
Psychrometer calibration, The psychrometer voltmeter is factors of approximately x 10*n0.26 (i.e. between 0.55 and 1.8)
readable to 10 nV on its most sensitive scale corresponding
to f 2 kPa potential. However, at this sensitivity the
106
psychrometer is detecting temperature differences of 200 nK
and, in practice, accuracy is limited by the temperature
stability in the sample changer and surroundings (Mullins,
1991). In the range -7 to -300 MPa, psychrometer readings 105
for salt solutions were reproducible to f 1%. Precision of salt
solution readings in the range -230 to -4500 kPa was
limited to f 3 0 0 nV corresponding to +60 kPa. The
104
calibration curve had a coefficient of determination of 0.999.
0
We have assumed that the accuracy of our calibration with salt B
solutions was limited only by its precision. -
\
-
.-
+
0

5
+ 103
Measurement of filter paper potential with the psychro- n
meter. With filter papers, accuracy is also limited by water .-u
c

loss from the filter paper in the time between making the I"
-
psychrometer reading and weighing the paper. Filter papers 102
weighed before and after psychrometer measurements lost less
than 0.5 mg on average. Accuracy of water potential readings,
estimated by repeatedly reading the potential for individual
filter papers previously equilibrated at a range of different 10'
water contents, was better than f 7 % . In most cases the
accuracy was much better than this.
I00
Measurement of filter paper water content. Weighing to an 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 14 16 1.8
accuracy of $0.2 mg, the maximum, random error in the Water content / g g-'
water content determination is approximately 0.002 g g-' (dry
Fig. 1. Fitted calibration lines ( -) and 95% confidence intervals
filter papers weighed approximately 0.2 g).
(- - -) for an estimate of matric potential from a further measurement
of water content for batch 1 of the Whatman No. 42 filter papers
Calibration equilibrated on wetting curves. The equations describing the
regression lines are in Table 1. Given the experimental arrangement
In common with most other authors we have fitted separate the water content of the filter paper was, in fact, the dependent
linear regressions to the upper and lower ranges of matric variable and regression equations were calculated on this basis. The
potentials with the matric potential ($+J on a logarithmic graphs and regression equations are actually presented the other way
scale. For the lower potentials the regression was performed around to facilitate determination of the matric potential knowing the
between potentials of -250 kPa and - 120 MPa and the line water content of the filter paper.

0 1995 Blackwell Science Ltd, European Journal of Soil Science, 46,233-239

236 R.N. Deka et al.

at low matric potentials ( < -47.9 kPa) and x (i.e. drying curve have, therefore, not been used in Fig. 1 or any of
between 0.66 and 1.5) at high matric potentials. the analyses.
For the batch shown in Fig. 1, there were no significant
differences between the separate regression lines fitted to the
Tests of accuracy using soil
results for filter papers taken from different boxes, at either
low or high matric potentials. The regressions produced from The matric potentials determined using our standard sampling
three different batches of Whatman No. 42, and one batch of and measuring technique together with the appropriate
Whatman No. 1 are shown in Fig. 2 together with those calibration curve, are compared against the soil matric
published by other authors. The equations and coefficients of potentials measured directly with either the tensiometers or
determination (r2) for our batches are given in Table 1. the psychrometer in Fig. 3. A linear regression of these data
Although all of the regressions for Whatman No. 42 paper
were in reasonable agreement (Fig. 2), significant differences
Table 1. Regression equations from the calibration procedure (wetting
existed between some of our batches (Table 2), and between
curve) in the form loglo(-$,)=a-hM, where 1/1,,, is the matric
different types of paper (e.g. Whatman Nos. 1 and 42) at both
potential (kPa) and M is the gravimetric water content (g g-') of the
high and low matric potentials (Fig. 2 and Table 2). filter papers.
All the results discussed so far refer to filter papers
equilibrated on a wetting curve. Separate regressions were U h r2 Range
also produced for wetting and drying curves for batch 1 for the Whatman No. 42
low potentials. The lines differed at the P < 0.001 level: Batch 1 5.297 6.507 0.97 I),,,< -47.9 kPa
2.380 1.259 0.96 $>
, -47.9 kPa
wetting: loglo(-$J,,,)= 5.297 -6.507 M , Batch 2 5.320 7.083 0.99 jjm< -48.9 kPa
drying: loglo(- &,) = 5.259 - 5.573 M . 2.338 1.266 0.96 $,,, > -48.9 kPa
Hence, calibration on a drying curve would tend to give Batch 3 4.932 5.896 0.92 $, < c. - 50 kPa"
Batch 4 2.377 1.326 0.99 $, > c. - 50 kPab
underestimates, if used for our standard technique for
estimating matric potential. Papers which equilibrated on a Whatman No. 1
Batch 5 5.152 5.824 0.98 $<
, -44.0 kPa
2.339 1.154 0.96 $>
, -44.0 kPa
- Whatman No. 42 "Batch 3 was only calibrated over the range -0.8 to - 10 MPd.
bBatch 4 was only calibrated at - 1,- 10 and -50 kPa.

5 Fowcett 8 Collis-George, 1967

6 Chandler 8 Gutierrez, 1986 Table 2. Comparison of regression equations from the calibration
7 Greaten et ol., 1987 procedure. Comparisons marked ** differed in slope and/or intercept
8 Hamblin, 1981
....... Schleicher & Schuell No. 589 at the P<O.O1 level of significance. NS denotes no significant
9 McQueen & Miller, 1968 differences.
10 Al-Khafaf & Hanks, 1974
(good contact 1 Whatman No. 42
..... Whatman No. I
II our batch
Batch I Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 4
Low matric potentials
( < c . -50 kPa)
Whatman No. 42
Batch 1
Batch 2 +*
Batch 3 NS **
Whatman No. 1
Batch 5 ** ** NS

High matric potentials

(>c. -50 kPa)
Whatman No. 42
Batch 1
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 Batch 2 NS
Water content / g g-'
Batch 4 ** NS
Whatman No. 1
Fig. 2. Fitted calibration lines for our own batches and other published Batch 5 ** ** **
lines.

0 1995 Blackwell Science Ltd, European Journal of Soil Science, 46, 233-239
 Measuring matric potential using filter paper 237

to CVs of 2.0 to 3.2% observed by Greacen et al. (1987) when

calibrating their papers over a similar range of potentials.
There was also close agreement between matric potentials
measured using the psychrometer and filter papers in the range
-250 kPa and -2.5 MPa. However, for the driest samples,
the filter paper technique tended to underestimate matric
potential (i.e. overestimate matric suction), suggesting that
longer equilibration periods may be required for potentials
< -8 MPa.

100 10' 102 103 104 105
I Psychrometer/tensiometer 1
motric potential / kPa
Fig. 3. Soil sample matric potentials measured using the filter paper
technique versus potentials measured using tensiometers (> - 100
kPa) or a thermocouple psychrometer ( < - 100 kPa). The 1 : 1 line is
also shown.
gave a coefficient of determination of 0.995. Table 3 shows
that equilibration of the filter papers at a matric potential of
-50 kPa required 6 d, although 4 d was sufficient at the
highest matric potentials (> - 20 kPa). Only results from
papers equilibrated for 6 d have, therefore, been included in
Fig. 3. The coefficients of variation (CVs) of the filter paper
water contents ranged from 0.7 to 2.3%, which is comparable
Discussion
Greacen et al. (1987) suggested that a universal water release
curve may apply to all filter papers at low potentials because
water is only held within the cellulose fibres whilst at higher
potentials it is also held in the pores between fibres, the size
distribution of which may vary between batches. Their
assumption would not hold true, however, if the fibres
themselves have different characteristics (e.g. cell-wall
thickness or chemical composition of cell walls) and, indeed,
our calibrations showed that significant differences in the
water-release characteristics exist, both between different
batches of papers and between different types of filter
papers, at both high and low matric potentials. For accurate
work, therefore, individual batches should be calibrated over
the full range of potentials for which the technique is likely to
be used. In this case the precision is limited by the variability
between papers (Fig. 1) but would be acceptable for many
types of study. The absolute errors involved are approximately
proportional to -&, . The absolute accuracy of the technique
depends also on the accuracy of the device used for calibration
(psychrometer and tension table in our study).
The calibration lines obtained by ourselves and other
authors were all similar (Fig. 2), despite being made by a
variety of methods, over many years and by different authors.
The most notable exceptions to this were those of Hamblin
(1981) who did not use the 'broken stick' type function used
by other authors, and the line of Al-Khafaf I% Hanks (1974) for

Table 3. Mean water contents, M , of filter

Mlg g-' $rn(c.+lc)/kPa $rn(oba) / kPa
papers (batch 4) from sets of four replicate
Equilibration
soil samples equilibrated for 2, 4 or 6 d. timeld Mean SE cv Mean SE CV Mean
Matric potentials in kPa obtained from the
calibration in Table 1 are given as $rn(calc) 2 1.479 0.012 1.7 -2.61 0.1 1 8 - 1.94
and the mean values from duplicate tensi- 4 1.570 0.015 1.9 - 1.97 0.1 1 11
ometers as $,(,bs). SE is one standard error 6 1.571 0.017 2.2 - 1.97 0.12 12
and CV (%) the coefficient of variation.
2 0.747 0.017 4.6 -24.4 1.3 11 - 18.3
4 0.835 0.011 2.6 - 18.7 0.6 7
6 0.842 0.003 0.7 - 18.3 0.2 2

2 0.380 0.008 4.5 -74.7 2.0 5 -49.8

4 0.493 0.003 1.o -53.0 0.5 2
6 0.507 0.006 2.3 - 50.1 0.9 4

0 1995 Blackwell Science Ltd, European Journal of Soil Science, 46,233-239

238 R.N. Deka et al.
Schleicher and Schuell No. 589 calibrated by placing the filter
papers in ‘good contact’ with soil, pre-equilibrated at given
matric potentials (Fig. 2). When Al-Khafaf & Hanks (1974)
carried out their calibration with filter papers in ‘uncertain
contact’ or no contact with the soil, lines similar to those of
McQueen & Miller (1968), who also used a method involving
‘uncertain contact’ and the same type of filter paper, were
obtained. This suggests that McQueen & Miller’s line, shown
in Fig. 2, may have been in error. We do not, therefore,
recommend that generalised equations be used for all types of
paper. All of our papers were equilibrated using procedures
which held them in very good contact with the sources of
water during both calibration and measurements on soil and,
considering the similarity between lines for different batches
of Whatman No. 42, it seems that the technique could be used
with reasonable accuracy using a generalised line for this type
of paper, which makes it particularly convenient for studies
where equipment is very limited. Taking the average slopes
and intercepts from our batches, and those of Fawcett &
Collis-George (1967), Chandler & Gutierrez (1986) and
Greacen et al. (1987), the generalized lines for Whatman
No. 42 filter paper are:
loglo(-+,) = 5.144 - 6.699M, +, < -51.6kPa;
loglo(-$,) = 2.383 - 1.309M, $, > -51.6kPa.
The accuracy likely to be obtained by using these equations
can be seen from the variability between lines for this type of
paper shown in Fig. 2.
Fluctuating temperatures during the equilibration period
increase the variability of results, although the absolute
temperature at which equilibration takes place is not
important (Al-Khafaf & Hanks, 1974). For this reason we
took great care to shield samples from direct sunlight by
placing them in the insulated box immediately after collection
and keeping them in the insulated box in a shaded and draught
free location. Placing the box on a layer of expanded
polystyrene also helped to minimize temperature fluctuations
inside the box.
Our sampling procedure involved disturbing the soil
structure which may affect the matric potential at very high
values in certain soils. This was not a problem in our sieved
soil at - 1 kPa but where this is expected to be significant, the
method would have to be modified to use a filter paper
sandwiched between undisturbed cores (Hamblin, 1981;
Greacen et al., 1987).
Equilibration periods used by other authors varied from 36 h
(Hamblin, 1981) to 6 or 7 d (Fawcett & Collis-George, 1967;
McQueen & Miller, 1968), although Greacen et al. (1987)
noted that longer periods may be required for very low water
potentials. Our results showed that at least 6 d was required
even at -50 kPa but this was also sufficient for matric
potentials as low as -2.5 MPa. At -8 MPa and below, a
longer equilibration period is probably required although the
0 1995 Blackwell Science Ltd, European Journal of Soil Science, 46, 233-239
error in the measurement of -$, was still no greater than a
factor of x (i.e. 2.3) (Fig. 3).
In soils with a high organic matter content, microbial growth
may be a significant problem during the equilibration period
(Griffith et al., 1991). Fawcett & Collis-George (1967),
McQueen & Miller (1968) and Al-Khafaf & Hanks (1974)
treated their papers with fungicide before use to prevent mould
on the papers during equilibration although Hamblin (1981)
and Chandler & Gutierrez (1986) found this to be unnecessary,
as have we for mineral soils.
Acknowledgements
R.D. is grateful to the Government of Assam, India, and M.W.
to the British Council for financial support. P.M., J.T., E.V.
and C.M. are grateful to ODA (NRI and OFI) for funding part
of this work.
References
Al-Khafaf, S. & Hanks, R.J. 1974. Evaluation of the filter paper
method for estimating soil water potential. Soil Science, 117,
194- 199.
Chandler, R.J. & Gutierrez, (2.1. 1986. The filter-paper method of
suction measurement. Geotechnique, 36, 265-268.
Fawcett, R.G. & Collis-George, N. 1967. A filter-paper method for
determining the moisture characteristic of soil. Australian Journal
of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, 7, 162- 167.
Gardner, R. 1937. A method of measuring the capillary tension of soil
moisture over a wide moisture range. Soil Science, 43, 277-293.
Greacen, E.L., Walker, G.R. & Cook, P.G. 1987. Evaluation of the
filter paper method for &measuring soil water suction. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Measurement of
Soil and Plant Water Status, Vol. I , pp. 137-143. Utah State
University, Logan, UT.
Greacen, E.L., Walker, G.R. & Cook, P.G. 1989. Procedure for the
filter paper method of measuring soil water suction, Report No.
108. CSIRO Division of Soils, Adelaide, S.A., Australia.
Greenspan, L. 1977. Humidity fixed points of binary-saturated
aqueous solutions. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of
Standards, SlA, 89-96.
Griffith, G.W., Roughly, R.J., Pitman, T.M. & Spohr, L.J. 1991.
Factors affecting the determination of the moisture characteristics
of peat by the filter paper method. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 23,
1065- 1070.
Hamblin, A.P. 1981. Filter-paper method for routine measurement of
field water potential. Journal of Hydrology, 53, 355-360.
McQueen, I.S. & Miller, R.F. 1968. Calibration and evaluation of a
wide-range gravimetric method for measuring moisture stress. Soil
Science, 106, 225-231.
Mullins, C.E. 1991. Matric potential. In: Soil Analysis: Physical
Methods (eds K.A. Smith & C.E. Mullins), pp. 75-109. Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York.
Webster, R. 1966. The measurement of soil water tension in the field.
New Phytologist, 65, 249-258.
Webster, R. 1989. Is regression really what you want? Soil Use and
Management, 5,41-53.