Assessment of peat compressibility: Is there an easy way?

Hydrological Processes

Volumn 19, Issue 17, 2005, Pages 3469-3475

  Price, Jonathan S ^a   Cagampan, Jason ^a,b   Kellner, Erik ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Bulk density; Compressibility; Consolidation; Fibre content; Peat; Von Post

Indexed keywords

COMPRESSIBILITY; CONSOLIDATION; DECOMPOSITION; DENSITY (SPECIFIC GRAVITY); SOILS;

BULK DENSITY; FIBRE CONTENT; PEAT COMPRESSIBILITY;

PEAT;

BULK DENSITY; COMPRESSIBILITY; PEAT;

EID: 28244477590     PISSN: 08856087     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6068     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. ASTM. 2002. Standard test method for laboratory determination of fiber content of peat samples by dry mass. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04-08, D1997-91. American Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia, PA.
2. Boelter DH. 1969. Physical properties of peat as related to degree of decomposition. Soil Science Society of America Journal 33: 606-609.
3. Bubier JL. 1995. The relationship of vegetation to methane emission and hydrochemical gradients in northern peatlands. Journal of Ecology 83: 403-420.
4. Chow TL, Rees HW, Ghanem I, Cormier R. 1992. Compactibility of cultivated Sphagnum peat material and its influence on hydrologic characteristics. Soil Science 153: 300-306.
5. Clymo RS. 1983. Peat. In Ecosystems of the World, Volume 4A, Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor General Studies, Gore AJP (ed.). Elsevier: New York; 159-224.
6. Damman AWH, French TW. 1987. The ecology of peat bogs of the glaciated northeastern United States: a community profile. Biological Report 85(7·16). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
7. Head KH. 1985. Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing, vol. 3. Wiley: New York. 743-1238.
8. Hobbs NB. 1986. Mire morphology and the properties and behaviour of some British and foreign peats. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology 19: 7-80.
9. Ingram HAP. 1983. Hydrology. In Ecosystems of the World, Volume 4A, Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor, General Studies, Gore AJP (ed.). Elsevier: New York; 67-158.
10. Kellner E, Halldin S. 2002. Water budget and surface-layer water storage in a Sphagnum bog in central Sweden. Hydrological Processes 16: 87-103.
11. Kellner E, Strack M, Price JS, Waddington JM. 2003. Changes of peat volume with pressure and impact of gas bubble formation. In Ecohydrological Processes in Northern Wetlands, Jarvet A, Lode E (eds). Institute of Ecology, Tallinn Pedagogical University/Sheffield Wetlands Research Centre, University of Sheffield: Tallinn/Sheffield; 79-84.
12. Kennedy GW, Price JS. 2004. Simulating soil water dynamics in a cutover bog, Water Resources Research 40: DOI: 10-1029/932004WR003099.
13. Kennedy GW, Price JS. 2005. A conceptual model of volume-change controls on the hydrology of cutover peats. Journal of Hydrology 302: 13-27.
14. Lang Y. 2002. Influence of water table changes on saturated peat compressibility and permeability. MEng thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo.
15. MacFarlane IC (ed.). 1969. Muskeg Engineering Handbook. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.
16. McCarthy D. 2001. Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Basic Geotechnics, 6th edition. Prentice Hall: NJ, USA.
17. Oleszczuk R, Szatylowicz J, Brandyk T, Gnatowski T. 2000. An analysis of the influence of shrinkage on water retention characteristics of fen peat-moorsh soil. Suo 51: 139-147.
18. PERG. 2003. Restoring a peatland in its whole: Bois-des-Bel research station. www.gret-perg.ulaval.ca/en∥ojets_05.html [5 January 2005].
19. Petrone RM, Waddington JM, Price JS, Carey SK. 2004. Statistical characterization of the spatial variability of soil moisture in a cutover peatland. Hydrological Processes 18: 41-52.
20. Price JS. 2003. The role and character of seasonal peat soil deformation on the hydrology of undisturbed and cutover peatlands. Water Resource Research 39(9): 1241. DOI: 10.1029/2002WR001302.
21. Price JS, Schlotzhauer SM. 1999. Importance of shrinkage and compression in determining water storage changes in peat: the case of a mined peatland. Hydrological Processes 13: 2591-2601.
22. Rampino C, Mancuso C, Vinale F. 1999. Laboratory testing on an unsaturated soil: equipment, procedures, and first experimental results. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36: 1-12.
23. Rochefort L, Desrochers A, Lavoie C, Price JS, Waddington JM. 2004. Restauration des Tourbières de l'est du Canada: rapport final du projet (1999-2003). Dossier CRDPJ 226961-99. Groupe de recherché en écologie des tourbèes, Université Laval, Quebec.
24. Roulet NT. 1991. Surface level and water table fluctuations in a subarctic fen. Arctic and Alpine Research 23: 303-310.
25. Shantz MA, Price JS. 2005. Characterization of surface storage and runoff patterns following peatland restoration, Quebec, Canada. Hydrological Processes in press.
26. Silins U, Rothwell RL. 1998. Forest peatland drainage and subsidence affect soil water retention and transport properties in an Alberta peatland. Soil Science Society of America Journal 62: 1048-1056.
27. Stinnette P. 1998. Prediction of field compressibility from laboratory consolidation tests of peats and organic soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal 21: 297-306.
28. Spivey Jr LD, Busscher WJ, Campbell RB. 1986. The effect of texture on strength of southeastern coastal plain soils. Soil and Tillage Research 6: 351-353.
29. Strack M, Waddington JM, Tuittila E-S. 2004. Effect of water table drawdown on northern peatland methane dynamics: implications for climate change. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: GB4003. D01: 10.1029/ 2003GB002209.
30. Terzaghi K. 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Wiley: New York.