『Abstract
The aim of this interdisciplinary study is to examine a component
of the hydrological cycle in Galapagos by characterizing soil
properties. Nine soil profiles were sampled on two islands. Their
physical and hydrodynamic properties were analyzed, along with
their mineralogical composition. Two groups of soils were identified,
with major differences between them. The first group consists
of soils located in the highlands (>350 m a.s.l), characterized
by low hydraulic conductivity (<10-5 m s-1)
and low porosity (<25%). These soils are thick (several meters)
and homogeneous without coarse components. Their clay fraction
is considerable and dominated by gibbsite. The second group includes
soils located in the low parts of the islands (<300 m a.s.l.).
These soils are characterized by high hydraulic conductivity (>10-3
m s-1) and high porosity (>35%). The structure of these
soils is heterogeneous and includes coarse materials. The physical
properties of the soils are in good agreement with the variations
of the rainfall according to the elevation, which appears as the
main factor controlling the soil development. The clayey alteration
products constrain soils physical and hydrodynamic properties
by reducing the porosity and consequently the permeability and
also by increasing water retention.
Keywords: Physical soil properties; Hydraulic conductivity; Mineralogical
composition; Galapagos Islands』
Introduction
Material and methods
Study area
Study site
Determination of the clay fraction
Hydraulic conductivity in situ measurements
Porosity measurements
Results
In situ and laboratory results
Hydraulic conductivity measurements
Porosity measurements
X-ray diffraction results
Results from samples extracted on the surface
Results from samples extracted at depth (more than 20 cm)
Discussion
Soil physical properties versus altitude
Effect of the clay fraction on the physical properties of soil
Clay minerals composition
Porosity versus prescribed air humidity
Relationship between porosity and permeability
Hydrological implications
Differences between Santa Cruz and San Cristobal
Implications for surface runoff and infiltration areas
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References