'Micro-Lysimeter" Method for Determining Evaporation from Bare Soil: Description and
Laboratory Evaluation1
C. W. BOAST AND T. M. ROBERTSONZ
ABSTRACT
A new ("micro-lysimeter") method for estimating evaporation from
soil consists of pushing a thin-walled cylinder 76 mm in diameter into
field soil, removing the soil-filled cylinder from the field, closing the
bottom to make it water-tight, determining the mass of the micro-
lysimeter, replacing it in the field with its top surface even with the
surrounding soil, leaving it exposed to environmental conditions for
a period of time (typically 1 d), and redetermining its mass. Evap-
oration loss from the micro-lysimeter is the difference between the
two masses.
The objective of this study is to quantify the systematic deviations
of such micro-lysimeters from reality in order (i) to determine how
long a given micro-lysimeter can be used before its soil must be
discarded (and a new sample taken if further readings are desired),
and (ii) to correct for systematic deviations. The deviations are quan-
tified by comparing short micro-lysimeters with effectively "infinitely
long" ones. The deviation is influenced by the time that the micro-
lysimeter is exposed to environmental conditions and by the length
of the soil sample. For a silty clay loam soil under evaporativity
conditions ranging from 2 to 9 mm/d, the measurement error for
micro-lysimeters 70 mm in length is found to be < 0.5 mm for 1 or
2 d, depending on whether the initial soil condition is "wet" or
"dry," respectively (0.26 or 0.13 g of H2O per gram of dry soil in
the top 20 mm).
Hence, for many applications the method is valid for 1 or 2 d.
Correction equations for deviations of up to 0.5 mm are given. The
method requires. little equipment and makes possible evaporation
measurement under some conditions (for example, at large numbers
of sites or in areas of partial crop shading) where micrometeorological,
water balance, and traditional lysimetric methods are unpractical or
impossible.
Additional Index Words: lysimeter, soil water, water balance.
Boast, C. W., and T. M. Robertson. 1982. A "micro-lysimeter"
method for determining evaporation from bare soil: description and
laboratory evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:689-696.
E VAPORATION of water from soil is an important
component of the soil water balance, especially
in fallow fields and in cropped fields before full cover
is achieved. Techniques for estimating evaporation of
water from cropped or uncropped soil include micro-
meterological and water balance approaches (Hanks
and Ashcroft, 1980; Hillel, 1980) and lysimetric meth-
ods (van Bavel, 1961; Robins, 1965; Tanner, 1967;
Black et al., 1969). In most lysimetric methods for
determining evaporation, a body of soil (and vegeta-
tion, if present) is hydrologically isolated from the
surrounding soil and weighed occasionally or contin-
uously to determine the loss of water from the isolated
body. [Lysimeters also have been used to determine
1
Contribution from the Dep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Illinois,
Urbana, IL 61801. Supported in part by project no. 15-0356 of the
Illinois Agric. Exp. Stn. Received 27 July 1981. Approved 26 Feb.
J982.
2
Associate Professor and Technical Assistant, respectively.
689
the amount and chemical contents of drainage water
(Kohnke et al., 1940)].
The validity of lysimetric methods for determining
evaporation hinges on whether the evaporation from
the isolated body of soil is essentially the same as
from a comparable nonisolated body. A number of
factors can cause a lysimeter to deviate from reality:
changes in the hydrological boundary conditions (for
example, imposition of a plane of zero flow or a water
table at the bottom of the lysimeter), disturbance of
the soil during construction, conduction of heat by the
lateral walls, etc.
A common approach to these problems is to employ
large lysimeters, and either avoid soil disturbance
(Martin and Rich, 1948; Starr et al., 1978) or use the
lysimeters only after a long postconstruction settling
period.
Large lysimeters are expensive to build, difficult to
move, and must be weighed in situ. Lysimeters which
are small enough to be removed temporarily from
container holes for mass determination are described
by Miller (1878) and Rykachev (1898). A measured
amount of water was supplied to the bottom of these
lysimeters. However, to the extent that the added
water changes the amount of evaporation, these lysim-
eters give potential rather than actual evaporation
estimates.
Molchanov (1960, p. 248) describes another ap-
proach to the lower boundary condition question, stat-
ing that Popov (1948, 1950) "devised new evaporators
with perforated bottom" which were intended to
"gauge the replenishment of moisture in the monolith
by capillary rise from the lower soil horizons." Vasil'erv
(1949) dismisses the Popov design, primarily because
of problems in achieving good contact with the un-
derlying soil. However, assuming good contact, the
change in mass of the lysimeter does not equal the
amount of evaporation occurring in the undisturbed
soil (or in the lysimeter itself), but rather equals the
amount of evaporation minus the amount of water
entering from below (or plus the amount leaving). To
determine the amount of evaporation, the water flow
at the lower boundary of the lysimeter must be known.
If, on the other hand, the goal is not to measure
evaporation but gravimetrically to measure nondes-
tructively and repeatedly the water content of the soil,
then contact should be made between the bottom of
the removable sample and the underlying soil (Hide,
1954).
The micro-lysimeter approach developed in this
study avoids some of the problems of perturbed lower
boundary conditions and some of the problems in-
herent in the construction of large lysimeters. Very
small lysimeters which can be pushed into undisturbed
soil are used for a short enough time that the distur-
bance of the bottom boundary condition does not ap-
preciably affect evaporation from the soil.
690 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J . , VOL. 46,
r~ 76mm
RUBBER
/ STOPPER
Fig. 1—Procedure for micro-lysimeter determination of evaporation:
(a) cylinder, (b) cylinder pushed into soil with extension cylinder,
(c) micro-lysimeter at time of mass determination, and (d) micro-
lysimeter in field between mass determinations.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The Micro-Lysimeter Method
The lysimeters designed for this study are brass cylinders
with a 76-mm i.d. and walls 3 mm in thickness. The walls
are tapered at the bottom to 0.5 mm (Fig. la) to ease in-
sertion into the soil.
The cylinders are pushed into the soil (Fig. Ib) to within
about 6 mm of the rim, either by hand or by a hydraulic
pushing device. In either case it is helpful to place an "ex-
tension" cylinder on the upper rim of the lysimeter cylinder.
The extension is held in place by three or four tabs (only
one shown in Fig. Ib) which project downward from the
extension on the outside of the lysimeter cylinder.
After removing the cylinder from the field, cleaning soil
from the outside, and trimming the soil even with the bottom
of the cylinder, a no. 14 rubber stopper, cut to a thickness
of 20 mm, is pushed up into the cylinder. This raises the
soil surface to the level of the rim and seals the bottom of
the sample against water movement (Fig. Ic). The resulting
sample length is about 6 mm shorter than the cylinder length.
After the bottom of the cylinder is sealed, the mass of the
micro-lysimeter is determined.
Two practical considerations argue for using cylinders
which are as small in diameter and length as possible: (i)
ease of initial insertion into the soil, and (ii) ability to de-
termine the mass of the micro-lysimeter on precision bal-
ances. Cylinders of one diameter (76 mm) were tested. Hand
insertion of cylinders 76 mm or shorter is feasible under
most soil moisture conditions. In addition, the mass of a
76-mm long by 76-mm diam soil-filled brass cylinder is typ-
ically between 900 and 1,100 g, so a 1,200-g balance can be
used.
After the micro-lysimeter is weighed, it is put in a plastic
bag (to protect the outside of the cylinder and the rubber
stopper from contamination by surrounding soil) and placed
in a preformed hole in the soil (Fig. Id) .at a location with
the same aspect and shading as the sampling location. The
bag is then trimmed level with the soil surface.
Following exposure to environmental conditions for a
period of time, the micro-lysimeter is removed from the hole
and plastic bag and its mass is determined again. The dif-
1982
ference between the two masses divided by the circular:
cross-sectional area of the cylinder is the cumulative evap
orative flux density during the time period. With a surface
area of 4,500 mm2, cylinders 76 mm in diameter lose 4.5 g
of water for each mm of water evaporated. Hence, if a
balance which is precise to 0.01 g is used, the cumulative
evaporative flux density is known to within 0.005 mm.
The micro-lysimeter can be repeatedly weighed and re-
placed in the preformed hole as long as it is not kept an
appreciable time in the weighing environment, where evap-
oration may not occur at the same rate as in the field. The
soil in the micro-lysimeter must be discarded when the no-
flow bottom boundary condition causes evaporation to de-
viate too much from reality. As shown below, this often
occurs after 1 or 2 d of use. A correction for small systematic
errors in the method is given below.
Laboratory Evaluation Procedure
A laboratory experiment was done to investigate two
questions: (i) how long does the loss of water from a micro-
lysimeter equal (to a desired degree of accuracy) the loss
from undisturbed soil, and (ii) how is this time affected by
the length of the micro-lysimeter, the evaporativity, and the
hydrological state of the soil at the beginning of the mea-
surement period?
The soil used was Drummer silty clay loam (Typic Hap-
laquoll) at the University of Illinois agronomy farm at Ur-
bana. Application of the pressure plate method to "intact"
(not crumbled or dried) samples of this soil gives 0.27, 0.25,
0.23, 0.20, and 0.15 g H2O/g dry soil corresponding to the
pressures 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, and 15 bars, respectively.
Using cylinders 152, 112, 76, 50, and (for a few runs) 26
mm in length, duplicate micro-lysimeters containing 146,
106, 70, 44, and 20 mm of soil were obtained from the field.
The micro-lysimeters were not placed in holes in the field
(Fig. ld),as is the usual practice, but rather were placed in
a constant evaporativity chamber for a period of up to 7 d.
During this time the masses of the micro-lysimeters were
determined from 1 to 6 times/d. The chambers used were
unlighted laboratory exhaust hoods with various air inlets
closed or open to control the evaporative demand. From
four to eight water-filled containers were interspersed with
the micro-lysimeters to measure the evaporative demand.
The micro-lysimeters and water containers were placed on
pedestals such that the surfaces of all were at the same
level. In addition, for the last four runs the micro-lysimeters
and water containers were placed on a rotating turntable
to smooth differences in evaporative demand within the
chamber.
A total of 12 sets of micro-lysimeter samples were taken
of which 10 were double sets (consisting of four micro-
lysimeters of each length). The micro-lysimeters for each
double set were split into two groups and placed in chambers
at two different levels of evaporativity. Thus in total there
were 22 evaporation "runs" representing a range of initial
soil water conditions and evaporativities. An effort was
made to obtain samples at times of typically wet and typ-
ically dry soil conditions. To characterize the water content
profile at the time of sampling, field soil water samples were
taken from the same areas as the micro-lysimeter samples.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Initial Water Content Profiles
The field soil water content profiles for the 12 sets
of micro-lysimeter samples are given in Fig. 2. Five
of the 12 sets of samples were dry with mass-based
water content between 0.10 and 0.16 in the top 20 mm
of soil (filled symbols in Fig. 2); the other seven sets
 BOAST & ROBERTSON: MICRO-LYSIMETER METHOD FOR DETERMINING EVAPORATION FROM BARE SOIL
water content (gm H20/gm dry soil)
0.00 o. 10 0.20 0.3O
——i——i——i——i——i——i——i——i——i——i——i——i——i——i——|—
• 4» T • m -O V
runs
_^_^ •• TA • CDO£7 M
o 1
E A 2 I 2.0--
E 5O- V 3. 4 • • TA <EDdt»
• 5. 6 o
.c A 7. 3 XI
a. T 9, 10 •4 m O VE> W«
a>
• 11 . 12
•01 OO-
• 13. 14
< 15, 16
I 0 17. 18 «^K£SD7 •
D 19, 20
15O- O 21. 22
Fig. 2—Initial soil water content for the 12 micro-lysimeter samplings.
Open and filled symbols distinguish samples which are classified
as having wet and dry initial conditions, respectively.
of samples were wet with values between 0.23 and
0.29 (open symbols). At the time of sampling the soil
surface appeared dry and wet, respectively, for the
two groups of samples.
As shown in Fig. 2, the difference in surface soil
water content extends to 146 mm, the depth of the
longest micro-lysimeter sample, except for one set of
samples (the filled circles).The samples represented
by filled circles were taken when the soil was frozen
at about the 100-mm depth and provide the oppor-
tunity to examine the behavior of soil in which there
is a sharp increase in water content at about the 50-
mm depth. One would expect the evaporation from
short micro-lysimeters to deviate from reality very
quickly if there is a considerable amount of water
available for upward flow from just below the bottom
of the short micro-lysimeters.
Interpretation of Individual Runs
The evaporation data for a run of low initial surface
soil wetness and low evaporativity (2.1 mm/d) are
illustrated in Fig. 3. The rate of evaporation from the
micro-lysimeters for time period 1 (between the first
two weighings) is essentially the same for all four
lengths. During the second time period the average
rate of evaporation from the 44-mm micro-lysimeters
falls below that of the longer ones. This occurs for
the 70-mm micro-lysimeters during the third time pe-
riod, and for the 106-mm ones during the sixth time
period.
Figure 3 is presented to illustrate the experimental
procedure, not as typical data; of the 22 runs made,
it is atypical in that it best approximates "model"
behavior. However, the variability exhibited is typi-
cal. Note that if both the 146-mm micro-lysimeters
(upward-pointing triangles) had behaved like the one
which evaporated faster, then the data would imply
that the evaporation rate of the three shorter-length
micro-lysimeters was never as large as that of the 146-
mm-long ones. Conversely if both 146-mm micro-ly-
simeters had behaved like the one which evaporated
slower, then the data would imply that the shorter
micro-lysimeters were evaporating faster than the 146-
mm ones for the first two time periods.
In light of this variability no conclusions are drawn
directly from the data of any single run; data from
more than one run are combined to draw statistically
691
run 6 "dry" initial condition
• e v a p o r a t i v i t y = 2.1 mm/day
CS<3
11.5
<=1.0
o
• water container!
A 146-mm m l c r o - l f » i m « t e r i
V 106-mm m l c r o - l y s l m e t e r i 1 i m e i of
weighing, )|m .
0.5-- O 70-mm m l c r o - l y i i m « t « r i
period)
D 44-mm m l c r o - l y t t m e t e r i
0.0'
1 2
t i m e ( d a y s ) —J>
Fig. 3—Rate of evaporation for a low evaporativity, dry initial con-
dition run.
testable conclusions. However, for reasons of clarity,
the run portrayed in Fig. 3 is used as an example in
the following exposition of the method of data analysis.
It is assumed in this study that an "infinitely long"
micro-lysimeter would behave the same as undis-
turbed soil and that micro-lysimeters of finite length
behave, for a time, as if they were infinitely long. The
most obvious way to know whether micro-lysimeters
of one length have ceased to behave like infinitely
long ones is to compare them with much longer micro-
lysimeters. However, even a very long micro-lysim-
eter will eventually deviate from infinitely long be-
havior. The problem is to know when this occurs.
Hence in this experiment, if at any time the next to
the longest micro-lysimeters are still evaporating at
the same rate as the longest ones, this is taken to
indicate that both of these sets of micro-lysimeters are
still behaving as infinitely long ones. For example, the
106- and 146-mm micro-lysimeters of Fig. 3 are re-
garded as standards for the 70- and 44-mm micro-
lysimeters for the first five time periods (2.2 d). After
this time, when the 106-mm micro-lysimeters begin
to deviate from the 146-mm ones, there is no way to
know whether the 146-mm micro-lysimeters are still
behaving as infinitely long ones, although for a while
they probably are.
Establishing a criterion for when the 106- and 146-
mm micro-lysimeters are behaving as infinitely long
ones is only part of the task, however. The goal of
the experiment is not to determine when short micro-
lysimeters begin to deviate from infinitely long be-
havior, but to quantify the error in estimating field
evaporation using relatively short micro-lysimeters.
For example, in Fig. 3 at the end of the fifth time
period, cumulative evaporation from the 70-mm mi-
cro-lysimeters is 0.45 mm less than the average for
the 106- and 146-mm micro-lysimeters. This suggests
692 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J . , VOL. 46,
-- run 1
e v a p o r a f i v i t y = 2.3 mm/day
10- -
"wet" initial condition
E 8
£ 2--
c
o
— 6- -
o
a.
o 20
4- - 20-mm
O
^^ A H6-mm m i c r o - l y s l m e l e r s
2-- V 106-mm m i c r o - l y s i m e t e r s
— - - t h e aboYe minus 0.5 mm
——— O 70-mm micro-lysimelers
——— D 44-mm m i c r o - l y s i m e t e r s
r d = 0.8
days ——— O 20-mm m i c r o - l y s i m e t e r s
-f-
2 6
time ( d a y s ]
Fig. 4—Cumulative evaporation for a low evaporativity, wet initial
condition run, including the definition of the 0.5-mm-deviation time
that a deviation of 0.45 mm occurs in the 70-mm micro-
lysimeters before uncertainty begins about the infi-
nitely long status of the two longer sets of micro-
lysimeters. Unfortunately the data from most of the
other runs are too variable for such a statement to be
made about them run by run. In the next section,
where all 22 runs are considered together, deviations
of up to 0.5 mm by the 70-mm micro-lysimeters are
shown to occur before the 106-mm micro-lysimeters,
taken as a whole, deviate from the 146-mm ones.
Because of this, a deviation 0.5 mm is used (somewhat
aribtrarily) as a benchmark for evaluating micro-ly-
simeter behavior in the following analysis.
Cumulative evaporation from micro-lysimeters of
the five lengths (146, 106, 70, 44, and 20 mm) over
a seven-day period is shown in Fig. 4 for a run of low
evaporativity and wet initial condition. A thick solid
line indicates the average cumulative evaporation for
the two longest sets of micro-lysimeters (triangles).
A dashed line is drawn 0.5 mm below the thick solid
line. The point at which a cumulative evaporation
curve for one of the three short sets of micro-lysim-
eters crosses the dashed line indicates the time, de-
noted td, at which the cumulative evaporation of the
short micro-lysimeters deviates by 0.5 mm from that
of the 146- and 106-mm micro-lysimeters. In Fig. 4
for the 20-mm micro-lysimeters, td is 0.8 d. The 0.5-
mm-deviation times for the 44- and 70-mm micro-ly-
simeters are td = 1.8 and td = 3.7 d, respectively.
Interpretation of Multiple Runs
Logically the first question to address is whether
the 146- and 106-mm micro-lysimeters do indeed evap-
orate at the same rate as each other long enough to
establish that the shorter micro-lysimeters deviate by
1982
runs 1, 2, 4, 16, and 18
low demand (2-3 mm/day)
"wet" initial condition •
3--
o
T3
-O 1- -
-r-
44 70
micro-lys imeter
l e n g t h (mm)
Fig. 5—Time td at which short micro-lysimeters have evaporated 0.5
mm less than 106- and 146-mm micro-lysimeters for all of the low
evaporativity wet initial condition runs. The three filled circles
represent the td values determined in Fig. 4.
a set amount (say 0.5 mm) from the longer ones.
However, this question can be discussed more clearly
after the variability of some "0.5-mm-deviation" data
is illustrated.
In Fig. 5, the 0.5-mm-deviation times, td, deter-
mined in Fig. 4 are plotted, together with similarly
determined times from the four other low-demand,
wet initial condition, runs. It was clear after three of
these five runs that the 20-mm micro-lysimeters de-
viated from the longer ones so rapidly that they would
be of little use in estimating field evaporation. Hence
20-mm micro-lysimeters were not included in later
runs.
One cause of the variability in Fig. 5 is seen in the
scatter of the data in Fig. 4. For example, for the first
.1.7 d after sampling, the curve representing the 70-
mm micro-lysimeters is above the thick solid line in
Fig. 4. As a result, the determination of 3.7 d as the
cross-over time may be unrealistically high, and, in
fact, it is the largest (filled circle) of the five values
shown for 70-mm micro-lysimeters in Fig. 5.
In the previous section it was shown that the within-
run variability makes it unproductive to ask, for each
individual run, the question: do the 106- and 146-mm
micro-lysimeters evaporate at the same rate as each
other long enough to establish a deviation of 0.5 mm
in the 70-mm micro-lysimeters? On the other hand,
the variability among runs makes it difficult to ask this
same question for all the runs taken as a whole. Con-
sider, for example, the five data points for 70-mm
micro-lysimeters in Fig. 5. For the run represented
by the bottom data point the time in question is 1.9
d, whereas for the top data point, it is 3.7 d. This
range pertains only to the runs with wet initial con-
ditions and relatively low evaporativity. If all 22 runs
are considered, the range is wider (0.8 to 7.2 d). Thus,
although for any one run there is a time at which the
question should be asked, for all the runs taken to-
gether there is no such single time.
An approach to this variability dilemma is to con-
sider differences in cumulative evaporation,mmnot as a
function of time t, but as a function of tlt™~ , where
^7o-mm denotes the value of td for the 70-mm micro-
lysimeters. The three curves and bands in Fig. 6 are
 BOAST & ROBERTSON: MICRO-LYSIMETER METHOD FOR DETERMINING EVAPORATION FROM BARE SOIL
+ 0.5-
106-mm - 146-mm
0.0
Fig. 6—Deviation of 106-mm micro-lysimeters from 146-mm micro-
lysimeters, deviation of 70-mm micro-lysimeters from average of
two long (106- and 146-mm) sets of micro-lysimeters, and deviation
of 44-mm micro-lysimeters from this same average, all as a function
of t/tj"-"""
averages and 95% confidence intervals for such dif-
ferences for the 22 runs. In the upper curve there is
a tendency for the 106-mm micro-lysimeters to evap-
orate slightly mm
faster than the 146-mm ones before time
t = 0.38 ?/°- , and for the reverse to be true after
this time. At no time, however, does the cumulative
evaporation for the two sets of micro-lysimeters differ
statistically (paired, two-tailed f-test, 95% confi-
dence). Furthermore, similar Mests indicate no evi-
dence that the relationship between the 106- and 146-
mm micro-lysimeters depends systematically on the
initial wetness of the soil or on the evaporativity of
the run. Hence from the upper curve in Fig. 6 we
conclude that the 106- and 146-mm micro-lysimeters
can be used as standards for the 70-mm micro-lysim-
eters until the 70-mm micro-lysimeters deviate by 0.5
mm from the longer ones. (Since the 20- and 44-mm
micro-lysimeters deviate from infinitely long behavior
more rapidly than the 70-mm ones, it follows that a
deviation of 0.5 mm can also be measured for them.)
In the two lower curves and confidence intervals
of Fig. 6 the 70- and 44-mm micro-lysimeters are com-
pared with the average of the two long (106- and 146-
mm) sets of micro-lysimeters. By the definition of
^70-mrn^ tjje 7Q_mm micro-lysimeters deviate from the
two long sets of micro-lysimeters by exactly 0.5 mm
at t = td°'mm Hence, for the middle curve, the con-
fidence interval shrinks to zero at tltd°~mm = 1.
There is an overall tendency for water initially to
evaporate faster from short micro-lysimeters than
from long ones (early positive deviations in Fig. 6).
In no case is this tendency statistically significant, and
in all cases the opposite tendency becomes predom-
inant: rapidly for the 44-mm micro-lysimeters and
more slowly for the 70- and 106-mm ones. However,
the first tendency may reflect a systematic length-de-
pendent effect of energy absorption through the walls
and bottoms of the micro-lysimeters in the (nonburied)
laboratory environment.
693
runs 1-4 and 16-22
"wet" initial condition
3-
-g 2
(a)
<D
20- - • 70-mm mlcro-lfs!met«ri
D 44-mm mlcro-lp!met«rj
2 4 6 8
e v a p o r a t i v i t y p ( m m / d a y ) —s>
Fig. 7—(a) Time td, and (b) cumulative evaporativity pta (each plotted
against evaporativity p) at which short micro-lysimeters have evap-
orated 0.5 mm less than 106- and 146-mm micro-lysimeters for all
of the wet initial condition runs.
Overall Effects
In Fig. 7, data for the 12 runs with wet initial con-
dition are plotted in two ways. In Fig. 7a, td is shown
as a function of the evaporativity, denoted p. In Fig.
7b, the cumulative evaporation from the water-filled
containers at time td (which is simply p x td) is also
shown as a function of the evaporativity, p. The data
of Fig. 5 appear in the left part of Fig. 7 (points plotted
with evaporativity values between 2 and 3 mm/d).
As shown in Fig. 7a, there is a tendency for time
td to decrease as evaporativity increases. This is not
surprising since increasing the evaporativity is similar
to "speeding up the clock." On the other hand, if
deviation was purely a function of the cumulative
evaporative demand, pt, then ptd would be constant
for all values of evaporativity. Instead (see Fig. 7b),
ptd is an increasing function of p. The representation
of ptd as a linear function of p, which is statistically
significant at the 90 but not the 95% confidence level,
indicates that an appropriate approximation function
for td is td = B + Alp, where A and B are (arbitrary)
fitting constants. Least-squares fits of this function are
shown in Fig. 7a. As shown by the fitted line, the
discrepancy for the 70-mm micro-lysimeters is < 0.5
mm for at least 1.3 d if the evaporativity is 9.3 mm/
d or less. For the 44-mm micro-lysimeters, this holds
for only 0.6 d.
The data for both wet and dry initial conditions are
summarized in Table 1. Here the "0.5-mm-deviation
lifetime" of the 70- and 44-mm micro-lysimeters is
expressed in two ways: (i) as the time td, and (ii) as
the cumulative amount of water evaporated from the
106- and 146-mm micro-lysimeters up until time td.
The runs with wet initial condition are divided into
three evaporativity groups, and the runs with dry in-
itial condition are divided into two such groups. The
694 SOIL sci. soc. AM. j., VOL. 46, 1982

Table 1—Mean and standard deviations of (a) time td, and (6) soil water loss, when cumulative evaporation from 70- and 44-mm
microlysimeters deviates by 0.5 mm from that of long microlysimeters.
(6) Water loss from soil in the long
(a) time t^ micro-lysimeters at time td
Initial Number 70-mm 44-mm 70-mm 44-mm
condition Evaporativity of runs micro-lysimeters micro-lysimeters micro-lysimeters micro-lysimeters
mm/d ———————————— d -
Wet 8.8 ± 0.8 3 1.4 ± 0.8 0.8 ± 0.5 7.7 ± 0.9 5.1 ± 1.4
Wet 5.5 ± 0.6 4 1.6 ± 0.4 (>!)* 0.7 ± 0.2 6.0 ± 0.7 3.7 ± 0.6
Wet 2.6 ± 0.3 5 2.9 ±0.8 (>!)**,(> 2)* 1.5 ±0.5(>1)* 7.6 ± 0.9 4.7 ± 1.1
Dry 6.2 ± 0.9 5 3.4 ± 1.3 (>!)**, (>2)* 2.5 ± 1.1 (>!)* 3.7 ± 0.7 3.0 ± 0.9
Dry 3.7 ± 1.0 5 4.0 ± 2.0(>1)* ,(>2)* 2.8 ± 1.3(>1)* 3.8 ± 0.7 2.9 ± 0.5
' One-tailed t-tests indicate whether td is > 1 or 2 d at the 95 (*) or 99% (**) confidence levels.

data are expressed as means and standard deviations
over the groups. One-tailed Mests are used to deter-
mine whether the 0.5-mm-deviation times (td) are sig-
nificantly > 1 or 2 d. Based on these /-tests and on
Fig. 7, it is concluded that the 70-mm micro-lysimeters
deviate by < 0.5 mm from infinitely long behavior for
at least (depending on initial wetness) 1 or 2 d, under
conditions where the evaporativity is 9 mm/d or less.
The tendency, seen in Fig. 7a, for a deviation of
0.5 mm to occur more rapidly under conditions of high
than low evaporativity is reflected in Table 1 by the
wet initial condition data, and, to a lesser degree, by
the dry initial condition data. The effect of the initial
conditions is also shown in Table 1. In terms of real
time, micro-lysimeters with dry initial conditions last
longer before a deviation of 0.5 mm develops than do
those with wet initial conditions. The opposite is true
if the lifetime of the micro-lysimeters is expressed in
terms of the cumulative evaporation from the soil
(right part of Table 1).
The two runs which were done on the samples with
a sharp increase in water content at about the 50-mm
depth (filled circles in Fig. 2) are included in the av-
erages in the bottom two lines of Table 1. It is inter-
esting to note that, for three of the four times and for
three of the four evaporation amounts given in these
lines, the runs with frozen soil had values which were
below the average values. Hence there is some in-
dication that the micro-lysimeter method is sensitive
to the unusual initial condition existing for these runs.
Error Analysis
If the absolute amount of error is important (for
example, if the total evaporation during an extended
drying period is being determined by a series of micro-
lysimeter measurements) then the times between re-
placement of soil in the micro-lysimeters can be longer
when the soil is dry than when it is wet.
If, instead, relative error is of concern, at least some
of this advantage for dry initial conditions is lost. For
initially wet 70-mm micro-lysimeters, the water lost
before a deviation of 0.5 mm occurs, regardless of the
evaporativity, is about 7 mm (Table 1). Thus the rel-
ative error is about 0.5 mm/7 mm = 1% (after 1.4,
1.6, or 2.9 d depending on the evaporativity). On the
other hand, for the runs with dry initial condition the
relative error is 13% (after 3.4 or 4.0 d depending on
the evaporativity). The corresponding relative errors
for 44-mm micro-lysimeters are 11 and 17% for the
wet and dry initial conditions, respectively.
Strictly speaking, these relative errors are not com-
parable to each other because they occur after varying
amounts of time. However, most of the times are
greater than 1 or 2 d, so the above errors are generally
larger than those which are encountered in the method.
The systematic error that occurs witrTmicro-lysim-
eters can be estimated and corrected for by the fol-
lowing procedure, which is based on Fig. 6 and either
Table 1 or Fig. 77.mm
1. Estimate t d°' either using the upper regression
line in Fig. 7a (for wet initial conditions, where
td is strongly dependent on the evaporativity) or
using Table 1 (for dry initial conditions, where
it is not).
2. Divide the time that the micro-lysimeter has been
exposed to environmental conditions by f™~mm.
3. Find this value on the horizontal axis of Fig. 6
and estimate the correction (in mm), which is to
be added to the measured value, from the middle
or lower curve of Fig. 6. (Note that for bothmm70-
and 44-mm micro-lysimeters, the value ?™~ is
used in this procedure in the denominator of the
fraction tit™'""" because it is this value which was
used in developing Fig. 6.)
As a substitute for step (3) above, the following equa-
tions, which approximate the middle and lower curves
of Fig. 6, can be used:
correction (in
mm) for a 70-mm
micro-lysimeter
0.0 if 0.0 < t/t7d°-mm < 0.5
- 0.5 if 0.5 < t/ffmm < 1.0,
and
correction (in
mm) for a 44-mm
micro-lysimeter
if 0.0 < t/t7d°-mm < 0.2
0.2 if 0.2 < t/t™-mm < 0.5
7 mm
0.7 if Q.5 < t/t d°- < 1.0.
The value of the proposed procedure for error es-
timation is restricted by limitations on the data from
which it is developed. It applies to only two micro-
lysimeter lengths and two levels of initial soil wetness
 BOAST & ROBERTSON: MICRO-LYSIMETER METHOD FOR DETERMINING EVAPORATION FROM BARE SOIL
and is based solely on data from a fine-textured, high
organic matter, surface soil. Refinement of the cor-
rection procedure and determination of the applica-
bility of the micro-lysimeter method to other soils
requires further work.
On the other hand, for the soil studied the error
estimation procedure is probably adequate for most
uses. It provides an upper limit for the error because
the largest errors occur with wet soil and the micro-
lysimeter method seldom will be used under condi-
tions wetter than the wet initial condition studied.
(There is not much need to use the method in wetter
soil because soil evaporation is generally equal to or
proportional to the evaporative demand when the soil
surface is wetter than it was for the wet initial con-
dition studied.)
Furthermore, in the range of soil moisture between
the two conditions formmwhich data are available, even
a poor estimate of ^°- leads to relatively small errors
in the error estimate. Consider a one-day measure-
ment period with a 70-mm micro-lysimeter, under con-
ditions of high evaporativity (9 mm/d) and of soil initial
condition somewhere between wet and dry. At one
extreme, if the initial condition is assumed to be wet,
from Fig. 7 or Table 1 $"-mm is 1.4 d, t/f^mm is 0.7,
and the correction is 0.2 mm. If the initial condition
is assumed to be dry, from Table 1 f7mm is 3.4 d,
070-mm is QJ ; and the correction js Q.O mm. If the
measured soil evaporation is at least 2 mm (a reason-
able expectation if soil which is not clearly dry is
subjected to an evaporativity of 9 mm/d), the maxi-
mum possible error in using the wrong correction
value is 0.2 mm/2 mm (10%). Since in most cases an
intelligent guess can be made about whether to assume
a wet or a dry initial condition, an error as large as
10% will seldom occur. In a similar example, but with
low evaporativity, the correction for either wet or dry
soil is zero.
Finally, assumption of a dry initial condition for soil
which is drier than that of this experiment also results
in errors which are < 10% because the large ?™~mm
values associated with dry soil lead to small or no
corrections.
Final Water Content Profiles
A phenomenon which contributes to the ability of
the short micro-lysimeters to behave like infinitely
long soil columns is shown in Fig. 8. Here gravi-
metrically determined soil water contents of micro-
lysimeters at the end of two of the wet initial con-
dition, medium evaporativity runs are plotted. These
two runs were terminated after 3.5 d, that is, consid-
erably after the 0.5-mm-deviation times: 1.4 and 2.0
d for the 70-mm micro-lysimeters, and 0.4 and 0.6 d
for the 44-mm ones.
The striking feature shown in Fig. 8 is that, although
the short micro-lysimeters lost considerably less total
water than the long ones during the runs, their soil
water contents decreased more. Note, however, that
the water contents in the top 20 mm of the 106- and
146-mm micro-lysimeters are nearly equal, a fact
which is consistent with the observed equality of evap-
oration rate for these two sets of micro-lysimeters
after 3.5 d.
695
water content (gm H20/gm dry soil)
0.15 0.25
so- -
runs 21 and 22
T) 100- - • Initial condition
A 146-mm m l c r o - l y s l m e t e r s
V 106-mm mlcro-lysimeteri
O 70-mm mlcro-lyslmeten
15O- •
D 44-mm micro-lyslmelen
Fig. 8—Final soil water content for two of the medium evaporativity
(5.4 and 6.0 mm/d) wet initial condition runs.
It is of further interest to note that for the other two
wet initial condition, medium evaporativity runs, which
were terminated after only 1.9 d (not shown in Fig.
8), the water contents of the 106- and 146-mm micro-
lysimeters are very close to each other at all depths,
an even stronger indication that these two sets of
micro-lysimeters were still behaving as if they were
infinitely long.
CONCLUSIONS
A new micro-lysimeter method can be used for di-
rect measurement of water evaporation from bare soil.
For a mollisol and for evaporativity ranging from 2
to 9 mm/d, micro-lysimeters 70 mm in length are ac-
curate to within 0.5 mm for 1 or 2 d depending on
initial soil wetness. A procedure for correction of sys-
tematic deviations (due to the shallow no-flow bound-
ary condition imposed at the bottom of the micro-
lysimeter) reduces the error further.
The method, while labor intensive, requires very
little equipment. Evaporation can be determined under
circumstances where traditional methods are impract-
ical or impossible. For example, micro-lysimeters can
be used at a large number of locations for just a few
days, where the cost of larger lysimeters would be
prohibitive. Also, evaporation can be measured as a
function of distance from a crop row, under conditions
of partial cover and partial shading, or in other situ-
ations for which the spatial resolution of traditional
lysimeters is too large.
696 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. ]., VOL. 46, 1982