Ogbe, V. B.Jayeoba, O. J.Amana, S. M.2023-12-112023-12-112011-10-12Jgbadun, H. E & Idris, U. D. (2007). Performance Oku, E. & Aiyelari, A. (2011). Predictability of = evaluation of infiltration models in a — hydromorphic soil. Nigeria Journal of Soil and Environmental Research, 7:53- 59. Philip and Kostiakov infiltration model under inceptisols in the Humid Forest Zone, Nigeria. Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science), 45:594 -602. —Jsrealsen, W. O. & Hansen V. E. (1962). Irrigation _ Principle and Practice. 3rd Edition, John Philip, J.R. & Farrell, D. A. (1964). General solution Illey and Sons Inc New York. of the infiltration-advance problem in irrigation hydraulics. Journal of Geophysics Research, Jobling, G. A. & Turner, A. K. (1973). Physical 69 (4): 621-631. model study of border irrigation. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Philip, J. R. (1957). The theory of infiltration: 4. ASCE. 99:493-510. Sorptivity and algebraic infiltration equations. Soil Science, 84:257-264. Kostiakov, A. N. (1932). On the Dynamics of the Coefficient of Water Percolation in Soil and Rawls, W. J., Ahuja, L. R., Brakensiek, D. L. & on the Necessity of Studying it from the Dynamic Point of View for Purpose of Amelioration. Trans. 6th Comm. Int. Soil Shirmohammadi, A. (1993). Infiltration and soil water movement. In Handbook of Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Science Society, Moscow, part A, 17. Serralheiro, R. P. (1988). A Study of Furrow Irrigation on a Luvisoil, Evora. Doctoral Dissertation Presented to the University of Evora. Lewis, M. R. (1937). The rate of infiltration of water in irrigation practice. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 18:361-368. McComick, P. G., Duke, H. R. & Podmore, T. H. Serralheiro, R. P. (1995). Furrow irrigation advance (1988). Field evaluation procedures for surge irrigation. Transaction of ASAE, General Edition, 31(1): 168 -176. and infiltration equations for a Mediterranean soil. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. 62:117-126. Mudiare,O.J. &Adewumi,J. K. (2000). Estimation Turner, E. R. (2006). Comparison of infiltration equations and their field validation with rainfall simulation. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Biological Resources Engineering, University of Mudiare, O. J. (1982). Development of Design Maryland, College Park. Procedure for an Automated Border Dyke System. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Saskat- Zerihum, D. & Sanchez, C. A. (2003). A Draft Procedure for Development of Management Curves for Basins Irrigation on the Coarse Texture Soil of the Yuma MESA. Www.ag.arizona.edu/ aes/yac/researchdawit. Date: 15/10/2011. . of infiltration from field-measured sorptivity values. Nigeria Journal of Soil Research, 1:1-3. Chewan, Saskatoon. Musa, J. J. & Adeoye, P. A. (2010). Adaptability of infiltration equations to the soils of the Permanent Site Farm of the Federal University of Technology, Minna, in the Guinea Savannah Zone of Nigeria, Au. Journal of Technology, 14(2): 147 -155. Mustafa, O. S., Arshad, M., Sattar, I. & Ali, S. (2003). Adoption of kostiakov model to determine the soil infiltration for surface irrigation methods, under local condition. International Journal of Agric. Biology, 1: 40-42https://keffi.nsuk.edu.ng/handle/20.500.14448/2909ArticlePrediction of soil infiltration is a major problem due to its variability and proper selection of the technique used to determine the parameters of the models which depend on the local soil characteristics. Field experiments were conducted to assess the predictability of Kostiakov-Lewis and Philip's models on a sandy soil and to compare the measured and predicted cumulative infiltration using these models under local condition. A double ring infiltrometer was used to carry out three measurements each at 30 m interval in three different strips of 100 m long and 30 m wide. A total of nine infiltration tests were conducted in thefield. From the values of cumulative infiltration and time interval measured, the models parameters were determined. Using the two calibrated soil infiltration models, predictions of the cumulative infiltration were made for each strip. GENSTAT package was use to analyze the results. The result of the study showed that the Kostiakov-Lewis model predicted the cumulative infiltration better than Philip's model with the average values of the slope between the measured and predicted for strips A, B and C as (1.042, 1.065, 1.073) and (1.170, 1.202, 1.221), respectively and coefficient of determination, f1 (0.999, 0.996, 0.995) and (0.993, 0.988, 0.986) respectively. The t-test result at 5% level is not significant with values (- 0.806, -0.851 and -0.717) and (-1.779,1.688 and -1.689) for Kostiakov-Lewis and Philip's models respectively and for strip A, Band C respectively which meant that both models were within the acceptable error limitenInfiltration model, sandy soil, ring infiltrometer.Article