effect of aquasorb and organic compost amendments on soil water retention and evaporation with...

26
This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University] On: 15 October 2014, At: 08:39 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20 Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures M. Taban a & S. A. R. Movahedi Naeini a a Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources , Gorgan , Iran Published online: 05 Feb 2007. To cite this article: M. Taban & S. A. R. Movahedi Naeini (2006) Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 37:13-14, 2031-2055, DOI: 10.1080/00103620600770383 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103620600770383 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: s-a-r

Post on 10-Feb-2017

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 15 October 2014, At: 08:39Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communications in Soil Science and PlantAnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Effect of Aquasorb and Organic CompostAmendments on Soil Water Retention andEvaporation with Different EvaporationPotentials and Soil TexturesM. Taban a & S. A. R. Movahedi Naeini aa Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources ,Gorgan , IranPublished online: 05 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: M. Taban & S. A. R. Movahedi Naeini (2006) Effect of Aquasorb and Organic CompostAmendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures,Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 37:13-14, 2031-2055, DOI: 10.1080/00103620600770383

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103620600770383

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

Effect of Aquasorb and Organic CompostAmendments on Soil Water Retention andEvaporation with Different Evaporation

Potentials and Soil Textures

M. Taban and S. A. R. Movahedi Naeini

Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources,

Gorgan, Iran

Abstract: Aquasorb PR3005A, a hydrophilic polymer (a salt copolymer polyacryl-

amide), and garden waste compost were added to a loamy sand and a loam soil in

pots to assess their impact upon soil physical properties at two different evaporation

potentials. Compost was mulched and incorporated, the Aquasorb was incorporated,

and their effect on temperature and amelioration of soil water content and evaporation

was investigated. Mulching with compost reduced evaporation and increased soil

temperature. Maize (Zea mays var. single cross 704) was sown in the same pots

later, and growth indicator factors (plant height, fresh and dry weight, root weight,

and leaf area) were compared. It was concluded that compost mulch application is

beneficial to soil water retention whereas compost incorporation did not show these

benefits. Compost mulch advances seedling emergence and enhances early growth

through hydrologic soil amelioration. High rates of Aquasorb were also beneficial in

advancing the emergence and early growth of maize seeded in loamy sand. The

hydration capacity of Aquasorb is reduced as the electrolyte concentration and

electrical conductivity are increased. Increased electrolyte concentration in soil

solution, through drying, may result in gel dehydration and water release at potentials

greater than field capacity, which may be lost to drainage. Furthermore, it is concluded

that pot experiments with amendments fail to simulate field conditions.

Keywords: Aquasorb, compost incorporation, compost mulch, evaporation, field

simulation with pots, hydrophilic polymer, water retention

Received 18 February 2004, Accepted 14 December 2005

Address correspondence to S. A. R. Movahedi Naeini, Soil Science Department,

Agricultural College, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural

Resources, Gorgan, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 37: 2031–2055, 2006

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN 0010-3624 print/1532-2416 online

DOI: 10.1080/00103620600770383

2031

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 3: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

INTRODUCTION

The average rainfall is less than 250mm per year in Iran. More than 90% of

the whole country is covered by arid and semiarid zones. In these climates,

annual rainfall is limited with an uneven distribution. The main user of

water resources in Iran is the agricultural sector, which pays little attention

to efficient application. Increasing water-holding capacity in soils with

limited water retention (such as sandy soils) using hydrophilic polymers or

through improving soil physical properties (with different amendments such

as compost) may reduce water loss through leaching and evaporation and

improve efficiency of its application.

Hydrophylic polymers are produced in Iran and other countries of the

world, but their water-holding capacity for subsequent use by a plant may

differ according to their chemical structure. These solid materials normally

absorb distilled water hundreds of times of their own weight as a gel (Al-

Omran, Mustafa, and Shalaby 1997; Peterson 2002). Hydrophylic polymers

are small particles with different sizes when dry and remain as individuals

when wet (Bowman and Evans 1991; Peterson 2002). Hydrophilic polymers

(HPs) are either natural or synthetic. Some natural hydrophlilic polymers

are polysacharides, humus, polyuronids, and Aljinic acids. Synthetic

polymers with net type chemical bonds are not dissolvable in water. HPs

have an intensive hydrophilic character owing to presence of polar groups

within polymer chains (Wallace and Terry 1998). Synthetic HPs usually

are either polyveneyl alcoholes (–CH2OHOH–)n or polyacrylamides

(–CH2CHCONH2–)n. HPs used in agriculture are usually formulations

commonly made of starch polyacrylamid graft copolymers (starch copoly-

mers: SCP), venylalcohol-acrylic acids (copolymers: PVA), and acrylamids

sodium acrylate copolymers (polyacrylamides: PAM) (Peterson 2002).

Synthetic polymers are used more than natural polymers because they are

more resistant to biological degradation (Peterson 2002). PAMs such as

Aquasorb do not pose any threat to human life or environment (Seybold

1994). Under higher magnification, the detailed framework of the polymer

can be seen as a matrix of vacuoles connected by polygonal bridges. A

greater proportion of water, around 80 to 85%, is stored within vacuoles as

numerous minute reservoirs. The remaining 15 to 20% is still plant

available and is bound with a greater tenacity, persisting under a tension of

9.8 � 104 Pa at which point the vacuoles are air filled (Johnson and

Veltkamp 1984).

Addition of HP to growing media has been shown to increase water-

holding capacity by up to 400% (Johnson 1984a) and to decrease water

stress and delay the onset of wilting (Gehring and Lewis 1980). Gel storage

of water provides a buffer against temporary drought stress and reduces the

risk of failure of certain crops at establishment (Johnson and Leah 1990).

When lettuce and barley were grown under limited irrigation on a coarse

sand substrate, the interval between field capacity and the onset of wilting

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2032

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 4: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

was increased by up to threefold in the presence of polymer. Water-use effi-

ciency and dry matter production also responded positively to the presence

of both starch copolymer and PAMs (Woodhouse and Johnson 1991).

The common hydrophylic polymers are sensitive to electrical conduc-

tivity, and their absorption capacity is strongly reduced even with a low

electrical conductivity. This might affect their application in soils with

variable electrical conductivity. Starch copolymers have a greater hydration

capacity relative to other types of hydrophilic polymers, but hydration

capacity is less affected by PAMs with the same salinity levels

(Johnson 1984b). Because of the low cationic exchange capacity of coarse-

textured sandy soils and hence low electrical conductivity, the addition of

HPs to these soils had the best results compared to other soils (Peterson

2002). A range of potentials at which the water is retained by HPs is also

important. Water retained at potentials greater than field capacity and lower

than permanent wilting point is not available for plant use. Evaporation in a

soil treated with these polymers must also be considered when determining

their efficiency. Reducing evaporation from soil surfaces by using HPs has

been reported by Johnson (1984a) and Choudhary, Shalaby, and Al-Oman

(1995), whereas Tue, Armitage, and vines (1985) and Blodgett et al. (1993)

reported that HPs were not effective in reducing evaporation.

Compost incorporation also might reduce evaporation and increase soil

water storage in available range to plants (Opara-Nadi and Lal 1987). A com-

parison of water retention and evaporation by compost incorporation and

hydrophilic polymers could be informative. Compost mulch reduces evapor-

ation and increases water storage (Unger, Parker, and Jessie 1976; Shekour,

Brathwate, and McDavid 1987; Todd et al. 1991; Bussier and Cellier 1994;

Movahedi Naeini and Cook 2000). Compost mulch reduces evaporation

during the energy-limited stages of drying and extends its duration (stage 1

and transitional stage).

Soil amendment studies have developed the notion of soil evaporation

stages to describe alterations to the hydrological and thermal balance in exper-

imental soils. Three main stages of evaporation are usually recognized when a

wet soil dries (Hillel 1980). Stage 1 is purely energy limited when water

supply to the soil surface is not limited. The effect of evaporation demand

of the atmosphere driving a given potential evaporation would be expected

to end at the onset of stage 2, when soil limiting factors manifest. Stage 2

shows a rapid decline in evaporation over time as the soil dries until stage

3, when the residual rate is low and constant. During stage 3, water

movement in soil is mainly through vapor diffusion, and with its slow rate

it may last for months. Stage 1 drying ends at the point at which the curve

of accumulated evaporation deviates from that of free water. Container

filled soils such as pots, however, experience a long transitional stage when

both energy supplied through sides of the pots and the transmissional proper-

ties of the soil determine evaporation rate (Movahedi Naeini and Cook 2000).

In field (but not in container filled soils), due to diurnal alteration in

Soil Water Retention 2033

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 5: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

evaporative demand of atmosphere and nocturnal vapor transfer to the soil

surface and subsequent distillation, a diurnal transition from stage 1 to stage

2 and vice versa may be recognized. This stage is also called the transitional

stage and is very short as compared to that in pots. In pots, the contemporary

method for measuring duration and magnitude of the efficiency of amend-

ments on controlling soil evaporation is using cumulative evaporation

reduction curves (CER). CERs are the difference between cumulative water

loss from the bare and treated soil. Maximum evaporation reduction (MER)

is the peak CER with a descending trend afterward.

There are many reports about the enhancing effect of organic materials

and HPs on the yield of plants, which is strongly dependent on soil, plant,

climatic conditions, and the rate of application. Wofford (1989) reported

increased yield, fruit size, flower number, and early maturation in different

plants with HPs in the United States. In a field experiment, Silberbush,

Adar, and DeMalach (1993a, 1993b) reported that in a sandy soil water

storage and the yields of cabbage and maize were increased using HPs. All

the yield indices were positively correlated with reduction in water salinity

and HP increments. Different plants respond differently when organic

residues are used as a mulch or incorporated (Opara-Nadi and Lal 1987).

Cassava and yam showed different responses with pine needle mulch and

incorporation. Density of feeder roots for cassava were maximum with

mulch, lower with compost incorporation, and minimum with control.

However, mulch did not affect feeder root density with yam. Tuber yield

was not affected by mulch for cassava but it was increased for yam.

Mulching reduced bulk density under cassava but did not affect it for yam.

Compost incorporation reduced bulk density for cassava and yam both.

Acharia and Sharma (1994) observed increased maize and wheat growth

with pine needle mulch. Badaruddin, Reynolds, and Ageeb (1999) showed

that straw mulch enhanced tillering, advanced harvest date, and increased

harvest index and yield of wheat.

This research has the following objectives: 1) to relate evaporative

behavior to soil texture, soil temperature, and water-holding properties of

soils, the HPs, and composted material; 2) to determine the extent at which

an albedo change with a white color on a pot surface is effective on simulating

energy transaction in field soils; 3) to investigate plant response to the quantity

of Aquasorb according to the commercial recommendations; and 4) to inves-

tigate the shortcomings of common HPs for agricultural use such as Aquasorb

as a guide for further improvement of their chemical structure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two pot experiments were conducted in January–June 2002 to establish the

effect of compost cover, incorporation, and Aquasorb HP on evaporation

from loam and loamy sand soils in different stages of drying and in the

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2034

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 6: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

absence of crops under different temperature regimes. In a third experiment

(August–October 2002) maize (var. single cross 704) was sown in the same

pots used in experiments 1 and 2, for a comparison between these treatments

with plants present.

Experiments 1 and 3 were completely randomized in an open glasshouse,

whereas experiment 2 was completely randomized in a large temperature-

controlled chamber. In experiments 1 and 2, the treatments were open water

(W), bare soil (B), compost incorporation (I) (equivalent to 50 t/ha),compost mulch (M) (equivalent to 50 t/ha on the surface), and Aquasorb

HP with two rates of 0.0007 and 0.0014 dry mass to unit soil mass (Hp1

and Hp2, respectively). In the third experiment with maize, all these treat-

ments were used except open water. For all three experiments, all the treat-

ments were applied once to a coarse textured soil and once to a finer

textured soil in pots with three replications. In compost dry matter, nitrogen

(N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and carbon (C) were 72, 0.63, 0.13,

4.2, and 14%, respectively, giving a C:N ratio of 22.2.

The pots were 20.5 cm wide and 18 cm deep. The coarse-textured topsoil

was a flovent (Entisols) loamy sand soil (from Ziarat river bank, south of

Gorgan, Iran), and the finer textured topsoil was a calcixerolls (Mollisoils)

loam soil (Banaei 1973). This was sieved using a 2 mm mesh and packed to

an initial dry bulk density of around 1.88 g/cm3 for the loamy sand soil and

1.46 for the loam. The water treatment acted as a control with no soil

surface constraints on evaporation. The physical properties such as particle-

size distribution (Klute 1986), dry bulk density, chemical properties (Ali

Ehyaei 1997), and cation exchange capacity (Page, Miller, and Keeney

1986) of the soils were determined (Table 1). The cation exchange capacity

for Aquasorb PR3005A was 178.3 meq/100 g. In the loam soil, sodium

(Na), K, calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) concentrations in a saturation

Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of loam and

loamy sand soils

Soil subgroup Calcixerolls Flovent

Texture Loam Loamy sand

Sand (%) 31 78

Silt (%) 48 18.5

Clay (%) 21 3.5

Db (g/cm3) 1.4 1.8

pH 7.6 7.4

CaCO3 (%) 12 25.75

OM (%) 3.53 3.8

CEC (meq/100 g) 22.28 8.15

CaSo4 (meq/100 g) 0 0

ECe (ds/m) 2.8 1.2

Soil Water Retention 2035

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 7: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

extract (meq/lit) were 8.9, 2.6, 20, and 15.2 respectively. Sodium (Na), K, Ca,

and Mg concentrations for the loamy sand were 6.1, 1.5, 15.2, and 11.6,

respectively.

To recover drainage water and reduce the effect of heat conduction

through the sides of the pots, each pot was painted the color white, placed

within a second vessel, and mounted on rubber stoppers. Soils were then

saturated, covered with aluminum foil, and left to drain. When drainage was

observed to be minimal, the cover was removed and the pots were exposed

to allow evaporation and weighed regularly. Drainage water was included

in water balance calculations. The soil pots were handshifted daily around

the bench.

Data was obtained as follows. 1) Evaporation rates were derived from pot

weights collected from 8:00 to 17:00 h and from 17:00 to 8:00 h

(overnight) for about 2763 h at low evaporation potential (experiment 1)

and 1083 h at high evaporation potential (experiment 2). For the first 2 days

in both experiments, pots were weighed every 2 h between the 8:00 and

17:00 h. 2) Soil temperature was taken at 2- and 10-cm depths using a

digital portable thermometer for experiments 1 and 2. 3) Maximum and

minimum daily air temperatures were taken in laboratory. 4) Soil volume

moisture percentage at potentials 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 5, and 15 bars were

measured using Tempe pressure cells and pressure plates. 5) Water-

absorbing capacity of HP at different potentials and electrical conductivities

were calculated. 6) Growth indicator factors for maize including plant

height, plant fresh and dry weight, plant moisture content, and root dry

weight were figured. Data were analyzed by the analysis of variance and

corelations techniques (SAS 1996).

Experiment 1 experienced ambient air temperatures averaging 22.58C(ranging from 20 to 248C) between the 17:00 and 8:00 h; daytime mean temp-

erature was 23.5 (ranging from 21 to 258C). For experiment 2, the nighttime

air temperature averaged 32.28C (ranging from 30 to 348C), daytime mean

temperature was 34.5 (ranging from 32 to 388C). The purpose of increasing

the ambient temperature was to identify its effect on evaporation from the

amendments.

Experiment 3 was conducted to assess the effect of two rates of Aquasorb

polymer and compost (mulch and incorporation) on growth of maize under

moderate drought stress. The soils were wetted by standing the pots in

water (with the same height as soils in pots) for 48 h to ensure complete

polymer expansion and soil saturation. The pots were then allowed to drain

freely for 48 h. After drainage, weight of the pots were determined. The

pots were irrigated every week with equal amounts of water, and only one

pot with the lowest weight reduction was selected as the irrigation scale. To

minimize the risk of any temporary limiting aeration due to usual limited

drainage of pots, an arbitrary value of 100 cm3 of irrigation water was sub-

tracted from the weight reduction, and a quantity equivalent to the product

of this calculation was applied to each pot. A few seeds of maize were

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2036

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 8: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

sown in each pot, and after emergence, they were thinned to three seedlings

per pot. No fertilizer was used in the third experiment. The first plant height

was obtained 17 days after sowing (H1), and three further measurements

(H2 to H4) were obtained at 7-day intervals. The two last heights (H5 and

H6) were obtained at 5-day intervals. Two months after sowing, the plants

were harvested, and plant fresh and dry weight, root dry weight, leaf area,

and plant water percentage at harvest were determined.

For estimation of Aquasorb hydration capacity in soils of this experiment,

the hydration in distilled water and saturated paste extracts of loam and loamy

sand soils were compared. A constant weight of HP (0.20 g) were added to a

50-cm3 saturated paste extract of each soil and a distilled water in a glass

container with eight replications. Two hours later, the contents of each

container were filtered through a Whatman filter paper no. 42. Water-

absorption capacity was considered to be the difference between the volume

of added and filtered extracts. Using a similar method, the effect of valence

and concentration of cations on water absorption by HP was investigated. In

a factorial design, CaCl2 and NaCl with 11 levels of conductivity (0, 0.25,

0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5 ds/m) and three replications

were compared statistically.

Soil samples were obtained from pots when all three experiments were

finalized, and soil water content at tensions 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 bar

was measured using Tempe pressure cells and at 5.0 and 15.0 bars using

pressure plate vessels. Ultimate dry bulk densities were also measured for

all treatments in cores of Tempe pressure cells. Tap water retention by

Aquasorb (mass of water per unit mass of Aquasorb) for two replications at

same pressure steps was also determined when unmixed with soil.

RESULTS

Diurnal and nocturnal time-averaged temperatures at 2- and 10-cm depths for

loam and loamy sand soils are presented in Tables 2 and 3 for low and high

evaporation potentials. In loamy sand, mulch was found to increase soil temp-

erature (p , 0.05 for M. versus B & Hp1 & Hp2 & I, both depths, both exper-

iments) with one exception; the mentioned differences were not significant at

2- and 10-cm depths for the treatments under the diurnal high ambient temp-

erature. In loam, mulch significantly increased diurnal and nocturnal soil

temperatures at 2-cm depth relative to bare soil for the low ambient tempera-

ture (p , 0.05). Also, at 2-cm depth and high ambient temperature, the

addition of mulch increased the soil temperature with a significant difference

for nocturnal temperatures only (p , 0.05). Temperature differences for

the loam soil, with mulch at the 10-cm depth, were significant (p , 0.05)

with high nocturnal ambient temperature, whereas with high diurnal

ambient temperatures, temperature rises of the soil were not significant. For

low diurnal and nocturnal ambient temperatures, soil temperature values

Soil Water Retention 2037

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 9: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

were almost the same for mulch and bare soil at the 10-cm depth. The amount

of HP applied and the treatment where compost was incorporated did not show

any significant effect on temperature. The mean temperatures for the two soils

at 10-cm were significantly greater than the temperatures at 2-cm (Table 4).

This was true at both ambient temperatures. There was a positive and signifi-

cant correlation between soil temperature and evaporation rate at low evapor-

ation potential for both depths (p , 0.0001). For high evaporation potential,

nocturnal correlations were positive and diurnal correlations were negative

but not always significant (Table 5).

Treatment-averaged stage 1 drying (defined as time zero to deviation

from the evaporation curve for water) was 76 h for loam soil in experiment

1 and 81 h for loamy sand. These values for experiment 2 were 47 h for

loam and 25 h for loamy sand. The duration for the first stage of evaporation

with high ambient temperature was shorter than low ambient temperature.

From the beginning of experiment 1, 179 h onward for loam (Figure 1)

and 359 h onward for loamy sand (Figure 2), the evaporation rate for bare

soil, incorporation of compost, and both rates of Aquasorb were greater

than 50 t/ha mulch (p , 0.05 for M versus B & I & Hp1 & Hp2). From

204 to 720 h for loam soil (Figure 3) and from 106 to 778 h for loamy sand

(Figure 4), experiment 2 showed a similar pattern to experiment 1 with a

Table 2. Soil temperature at 2- and 10-cm depths with low

and high ambient temperature for loam soil

Treatment

Day Night

10 cm 2 cm 10 cm 2 cm

Low ambient temperature

Control 22.8ab 22.3b 22.5a 21.8c

HP 0.07% 22.7ab 22.3b 22.5a 22.0b

HP 0.14% 22.7b 22.3b 22.5a 21.9b

Incorporation 22.9a 22.4a 22.5a 21.9b

Mulch 22.8ab 22.4a 22.4a 22.3a

Mean 22.8 22.3 22.5 22.0

High ambient temperature

Control 32.3a 30.5a 32.1b 30.7b

HP 0.07% 32.3a 30.5a 32.1b 30.7b

HP 0.14% 32.3a 30.9a 32.1b 30.7b

Incorporation 32.1a 30.7a 32.1b 30.7b

Mulch 32.4a 31.5a 32.6a 31.1a

Mean 32.3 30.8 32.2 30.8

Notes: Mean separation within columns by Duncan’s

multiple range test, p � 0.05, with two individual statistics

for low and high ambient temperatures. Different letters

(a and b) indicate significant difference at p � 0.05.

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2038

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 10: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

statistically significant lower cumulative evaporation for mulch (p , 0.05).

Cumulative evaporation for mulch was less than the control, 95 h onward

for loam and 83 h onward for loamy sand in experiment 1 (p , 0.05 for M

versus B). According to statistical analysis (p , 0.05) from 204 to 720 h for

loam and from 106 to 874 h for loamy sand, experiment 2 showed a similar

Table 3. Soil temperature at 2- and 10-cm depths with low and

high ambient temperature for loamy sand soil

Treatment

Day Night

10 cm 2 cm 10 cm 2 cm

Low ambient temperature

Control 22.9b 22.4b 22.4b 21.8b

HP 0.07% 22.8b 22.4b 22.4b 21.9b

HP 0.14% 22.8b 22.3b 22.4b 21.9b

Incorporation 22.8b 22.3b 22.4b 21.9b

Mulch 23.1a 22.6a 22.6a 22.1a

Mean 22.9 22.4 22.4 21.9

High ambient temperature

Control 32.2ab 30.7a 32.0b 30.7b

HP 0.07% 32.2ab 30.7a 32.1b 30.8b

HP 0.14% 32.2ab 30.7a 32.1b 30.7b

Incorporation 32.0b 30.7a 32.1b 30.8b

Mulch 32.9a 31.6a 32.6a 31.2a

Mean 32.3 30.9 32.2 30.8

Notes: Mean separation within columns by Duncan’s multiple

range test, p � 0.05, with two individual statistics for low and

high ambient temperatures. Different letters (a and b) indicate

significant difference at p � 0.05.

Table 4. Two experiments’ mean temperature for 2- and 10-cm depths of soil

Evaporation

potential

Alteration

sources

depth Control

HP

0.07%

HP

0.14%

Compost

incorporation

Compost

mulch

Low 2 21.0b 21.8b 21.8b 21.8b 22.0b

10 22.3a 22.3a 22.3a 22.3a 22.4a

High 2 30.5b 30.6b 30.6b 30.6b 30.9b

10 31.7a 31.8a 31.8a 31.8a 32.2a

Notes: Mean separation within rows by Duncan’s multiple range test, p � 0.05, with

two individual statistics for low and high ambient temperatures. Different letters (a and

b) indicate significant difference at p � 0.05.

Soil Water Retention 2039

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 11: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

pattern to experiment 1 for evaporation (Figures 3 and 4). However, after

1083 h the cumulated amount for the mean treatments was the same as the

control for loam soil and even less for loamy sand. Compost mulch effectively

reduced evaporation rates in the beginning of experiment 2 but its rate relative

to other treatments was gradually increased, giving a cumulated evaporation

identical to other treatments after about 874 h in loam soil and 1011 h in

loamy sand (Figures 3 and 4).

Table 5. Correlations between evaporation rate (mm/h) and diurnal and nocturnal

soil temperatures (centigrade degrees) at 2- and 10-cm depths with low and high

ambient temperatures

Soil Parameter

Day Night

10 cm 2 cm 10 cm 2 cm

Loam soil Low ambient temperature

Correlation coefficient 0.4297 0.4724 0.5930 0.5439

P value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

High ambient temperature

Correlation coefficient 20.1848 20.0361 0.1237 0.1932

P value 0.0300 0.6745 0.1485 0.0232

Loamy sand Low ambient temperature

Correlation coefficient 0.5189 0.5437 0.6168 0.5916

P value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

High ambient temperature

Correlation coefficient 20.2695 20.1670 0.0730 0.1495

P value 0.0014 0.0502 0.3951 0.0801

Figure 1. Cumulative evaporation over time for treatments at low evaporation

potential in loam soils.

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2040

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 12: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

For loam soil, plotting the CER over time (Figures 5 and 6) for treatments

(derived by cumulating the difference between treatment and bare soil evap-

orations over time) shows a dramatic difference after 1565 and 407 h for

mulch in low and high evaporation potentials respectively. The MERs were

16.8 and 9.7mm at low and high ambient temperatures respectively. Other

treatments showed no significant difference over time. For loamy sand, the

MER (of 11.4mm) for mulch occurred after 1183 h in low ambient tempera-

tures (Figure 7) and the MER (of 11.8mm) occurred after 346 h in high

ambient temperatures (Figure 8). For both soils, increasing ambient tempera-

tures in the second experiment reduced the time it took to reach the MER

under all treatments. With increasing the magnitude of the ambient tempera-

ture, the magnitude of MER for mulch was reduced in loam soil (16.8mm

Figure 2. Cumulative evaporation over time for treatments at low evaporation

potential in loamy sand soils.

Figure 3. Cumulative evaporation over time for treatments at high evaporation

potential in loam soils.

Soil Water Retention 2041

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 13: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

versus 9.7mm) but in loamy sand it was almost identical for both ambient

temperatures (11.4 versus 11.8). CERs were not significantly different

among control, compost incorporation, and both rates of Aquasorb over

time (p . 0.05 for both soils; both ambient temperatures). Movahedi Naeini

and Cook (2000) reported increasing ambient temperatures reduced the time

for cumulative evaporation reduction under their treatments to reach MER

and increased the magnitude of MER.

Cumulated evaporation for compost incorporation and both rates of

Aquasorb were not significantly different from the control for both soils and

both experiments. With high ambient temperature, the cumulated evaporation

Figure 4. Cumulative evaporation over time for treatments at high evaporation

potential in loamy sand soils.

Figure 5. Cumulative evaporation reduction (CER) for treatments at low evaporation

potential in loam soils.

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2042

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 14: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

for high rate of Aquasorb for loamy sand from 1011h onward (1083 h) was

greater than bare soil (p, 0.05) and from 821 h onward (p , 0.05) was

greater than incorporation and mulch. According to Figures 5–8, Aquasorb

treatments had caused a high evaporation relative to bare soil, giving negative

CER values. Negative CER values for compost-incorporated treatments is

observed with high evaporation potential and loam soils (Figure 6). The

maximum negative value was 4mm for the HP1 treatment for loam and high

ambient temperature. Blodgett et al. (1993) also stated there is no significant

difference between Aquasorb and control treatment in cumulative evaporation.

Incorporation of compost did not change cumulative evaporation in

experiments 1 and 2 significantly. Opara-Nadi and Lal (1987), Movahedi

Figure 6. Cumulative evaporation reduction (CER) for treatments at high evapor-

ation potential in loam soils.

Figure 7. Cumulative evaporation reduction (CER) for treatments at low evaporation

potential in loamy sand soils.

Soil Water Retention 2043

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 15: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

Naeini and Cook (2000), and Shanging and Unger (2001) also reported that

mulching compost was more effective for evaporation control than incorpor-

ating the mulch. The available water capacities (AWC) averaged 7.1% for the

control and 8.6% for incorporation in loamy sand and 5.5% for control and

5.6% for incorporation in loam, and their differences with their controls

were not significant (p . 0.05 for incorporation versus control). Incorporation

increased soil water retention relative to the control at all potentials below 0

bars in both soils. However, this increase was only significant at 0.1 bar for

loam soil (p , 0.05) and at saturation (zero bar) for loamy sand (p , 0.05)

(Table 6). Increased water retention by incorporation with loamy sand at

potentials about 0 bars is expected to increase saturated and unsaturated

hydraulic conductivity at these potentials. Increased water retention by this

treatment at 0.1 bars in loam is expected to increase unsaturated hydraulic

conductivity in these potentials (Table 6).

AWC for the control in loamy sand was 7.1% and in loam 5.5%. The

AWCs averaged 8.7% for HP1 and 12.2% for HP2 in loamy sand and 8.6%

for HP1 and 5.6% for HP2 in loam with no significant increase in water

retention relative to their controls (Table 6). Water retention was only signifi-

cant for HP1 at potentials greater than 20.1 bars for loam soil (p , 0.05)

(Table 6). The effect of HPs on increasing soil water-holding capacity has

been reported by Miller (1979), Johnson(1984b), Johnson and Veltkamp

(1984), Johnson and Leah (1990), Bowman and Evans (1991), Al-Harbi

et al. (1999), Huttermann, Zommorodi, and Reise (1999), Sivapalan (2001),

and Peterson (2002). The quantity of this increment depends on the quantity

of HP used (Huttermann, Zommorodi,and Reise 1999).

Average water retention for two replications of Aquasorb at potentials

0, 20.05, 20.1, 20.3, 21.0, 25.0, and 215.0 bars were 160.5, 131.3,

127.7, 112.2, 93.3, 76.2, and 20.6 g of water per gram of Aquasorb

Figure 8. Cumulative evaporation reduction (CER) for treatments at high evapor-

ation potential in loamy sand soils.

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2044

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 16: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

respectively. The quantity of water stored between potentials zero and 20.1

bars (field capacity) was 32.8 g per unit mass of Aquasorb and between

20.1 and 215 bars was 107.1 g. Most of the water absorbed by Aquasorb

is stored at potentials available for plant use (107.1 g versus 32.8 g per unit

mass of Aquasorb). Johnson and Veltkamp (1984) stated that with a correct

reaction condition, at least 95% of moisture held by the acrylamide

polymers at full expansion is stored at tensions within the range of pF 2 to

4.2 and is therefore available to plants. In this experiment, 66.7% of

moisture held by Aquasorb at full expansion was stored within the available

range (20.1 to 215 bars) and 20.4% could be lost to drainage in a field

soil (at potentials greater than 20.1 bars). The rest is retained at potentials

lower than –15 bars.

The capacity of Aquasorb for absorbing both soils’ extract was significantly

less than for distilled water (p,0.001). Its absorption capacity for distilled water

(EC ¼ 0 ds/m) was 230 times its own mass. Its absorption capacity was dimin-

ished to 66 and 56 times its own mass with saturation extracts of the loam

(EC ¼ 1.52 ds/m) and loamy sand soils (EC ¼ 2.36 ds/m).

Table 7 shows that in both NaCl and CaCl2 solutions, water absorption by

Aquasorb was reduced as the electrical conductivity increased from 0 to

4.5 ds/m. Maximum hydration occurred in distilled water and the minimum

in CaCl2 solution with an electrical conductivity of 4.5 ds/m. A considerable

reduction in hydration occured within the EC range of 0 to 1 ds/m in CaCl2solutions (p , 0.001). Hydration reduction was greater with any further

increment of electrical conductivity (solute concentration) within 0 to

Table 6. Mean loam and loamy sand soils moisture (% v/v) at different pressure steps(bar) and the plant-available water between F.C. and P.W.P.

Treatment

Pressure steps

P0 P0.05 P0.1 P0.3 P1 P5 P15

Available

water

Loam soil

Control 39.4b 37.1b 35.8b 33.7a 29.9a 29.2a 28.2a 5.5a

HP 0.07% 48.5a 42.8a 41.2a 37.0a 30.1a 29.6a 28.5a 8.6a

HP 0.14% 46.9ab 42.2ab 39.7ab 34.4a 31.1a 29.8a 28.7a 5.6a

Incorporation 46.8ab 42.3ab 40.7a 37.3a 32.7a 31.7a 30.4a 6.9a

Loamy sand soil

Control 38.1b 32.3a 29.6a 24.3a 18.3a 17.9a 17.2a 7.1a

HP 0.07% 43.9b 37.6a 33.2a 26.9a 21.2a 19.8a 18.1a 8.7a

HP 0.14% 44.0ab 37.7a 35.5a 30.9a 25.7a 20.5a 18.7a 12.2a

Incorporation 45.2a 37.0a 33.5a 26.7a 20.0a 18.8a 18.0a 8.6a

Notes: Mean separation within columns by Duncan’s multiple range test, p � 0.05,

with two individual statistics for loam and loamy sand soils. Different letters (a and b)

indicate significant difference at P � 0.05. p ¼ pressure (bar).

Soil Water Retention 2045

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 17: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

4.5 ds/m range. By analogy, with the same increment in solute concentration

in a soil solution due to water evaporation, water release is expected to be

greater with the lower previous electrical conductivity. Only for electrical

conductivities 1 and 1.5, 1.5, and 2, 2 and 2.5, 2.5, 3, and 3.5 and 3.5, 4,

and 4.5 no significant difference was observed in water absorption. With

ECs greater than 1 ds/m, the absorption capacity for two electrolytes

differed when they had the same electrical conductivities (p , 0.0001).

Water absorption by Aquasorb in the NaCl solution was greater than the

CaCl2 solution at same conductivity. Therefore, valence and concentration

of cations in a soil solution are both determining factors in water absorption

by Aquasorb. Hydration of HP is reduced in the presence of cations especially

divalent cations (Johnson 1984a; Wang and Gregg 1990; Bowman, Erans, and

Paul 1990). Bowman and Evans (1991) expressed that the valence of the

accompanying anion does not affect hydration. Sequential rinses of the

hydrated gels with deionized water completely reversed the inhibition of

water absorption due to monovalent cations with very slight effects on

divalent cations. Johnson(1984a) reported that in a saline water

(EC ¼ 3.2 ds/m), absorption by HP was diminished to 75% of its maximum

capacity in deionized water. However, in the present experiment, absorption

by Aquasorb in CaCl2 solution (EC ¼ 3 ds/m) was diminished to 18.2% of

its maximum capacity in deionized water and to 29.9% in a NaCl solution

(EC ¼ 3 ds/m). In the presence of fertilizer salts, physical properties of

growth media were not affected by HP additions (Bowman, Erans, and Paul

1990). HPs have many –COO2Kþ groups that may behave as salts, increasing

Table 7. Absorption capacity by HP

(w/w) as a function of electrical con-

ductivity (ds/m) and cationic valance

NaCl CaCl2

4.5 61 hmor 24 pq

4 63 ghmr 31 pq

3.5 66 ghm 35 opq

3 71 ghm 43 op

2.5 80 gf 50 nor

2 82 f 6 hmn

1.5 99 e 74 fhm

1 120 d 91 efl

0.5 142 c 130 cdk

0.25 171 b 157 bcj

0 237 a 236 a

Notes: Mean separation for all means

within table by Tukey multiple range

test, p � 0.05. Different letters indicate

significant difference at p � 0.05.

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2046

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 18: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

their affinity for water. Multivalent cations actively dislodge and replace water

molecules at polarized sites upon and within polymers (Wang and Gregg

1990). In this study, Aquasorb was used at the recommended commercial

dose with no significant effect on available water capacity. Therefore, a

greater available water capacity in these soils requires a greater quantity of

Aquasorb.

For all treatments in both soils, the plant mean fresh and dry weights and

leaf area were greater than controls but with no significant difference

(Table 8). Plant water percentage at harvest was not significantly changed

by any treatment. Root mean dry weights for the incorporation treatment

(1.4 g/pot) was significantly greater than the control (0.4 g/pot) in loamy

sand (p , 0.05), but this difference was not significant in loam (2.3 versus

2.8 g/pot, respectively). Plant height under the mulch treatment in loam soil

was significantly greater than the other treatments only for 31 days after

sowing (p , 0.05). In loamy sand, plant height under the mulch treatment

was significantly greater than the control throughout the experiment

(p , 0.05). Mulch advanced emergence for at least 4 days with both soils.

Because of an early harvest, maize ears only emerged at harvest with this

treatment in loamy sand. The high rate of Aquasorb significantly increased

plant height in loamy sand relative to the control for 24 days after sowing

(p , 0.05). Huttermann, Zommorodi, and Reise (1999) reported increased

root and plant growth with a 0.4% HP (w/w) application with Aleppo Pine.

Al-Harbi et al. (1999) reported increased cucumber growth using 0.3% HP

application in a loamy sand soil. Austin and Bondari (1992) expressed

additions of HP had no effect on blueberry because of high salts in soil.

DISCUSSION

A greater soil temperature at the 10-cm depth relative to the 2-cm depth shows

that contrary to field condition, thermal diffusion through the soil surface is

not the only source of energy for evaporation. In fields with one interface

for energy exchange, diurnal soil temperature at the surface is greater than

at the 10-cm depth (Movahedi Naeini 1998). In pots, thermal diffusion

takes place from the soil surface and sides. Because of low water filled

porosity, low tortuosity, and a short distance to soil surface for vapor

diffusion, latent heat transfer from upper soil layers is possibly greater than

depth. Greater latent heat transfer at or near the soil surface makes it cooler

than at the 10-cm depth. Increased ambient temperature makes this difference

even greater (compare mean treatment nocturnal or diurnal temperatures for

each soil with two different ambient temperatures in Tables 2 and 3).

With high evaporation potential, superficial layers of a soil (within a pot)

air dry quickly, and thermal diffusion is concentrated within a shallow surface

layer (raising surface layer temperature), impeding its unrestrained pen-

etration through deeper layers (2- and 10-cm depths), reducing the ratio of

Soil Water Retention 2047

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 19: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

Table 8. Mean treatment average plant height per pot at 6 different stages (cm), total plant dry and fresh weigh per pot at harvest (g), total leaf area

per pot at harvest (cm2), total root dry weight per pot at harvest (g), plant moisture percentage, soil moisture percentage at harvest, and soil final dry

bulk density (Db) (after running three experiments) for loam and loamy sand soils

Treatment

Alteration sources

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6

Plant

dry

weight

Plant

fresh

weight

Leaf

area

Root

dry

weight

Plant

moisture

(w/w)

Soil

moisture

(%v/v) Db

Loam soil

Control 39.3b 50.5b 79.9b 90.5a 95.2a 101.0a 6.0a 58.8a 1440a 2.8a 877a 20.2ab 1.26a

HP 0.07% 44.6b 55.6b 83.0b 94.6a 100.5a 108.4a 6.7a 66.0a 1579a 2.5a 878a 19.8ab 1.24a

HP 0.14% 43.4b 56. 4b 80.1b 92.3a 99.1a 105.2a 6.6a 61.9a 1565a 2.7a 841a 18.5b 1.23a

Incorporation 45.8b 55.7b 80.3b 92.4a 99.37a 106.9a 6.3a 59.0a 1446a 2.3a 841a 24.8ab 1.17a

Mulch 56.0a 75.0a 96.1a 103.4a 109.3a 111.7a 7.1a 66.4a 1685a 3.9a 867a 31.6a —

Loamy sand soil

Control 37.5b 44.0b 59.8b 68.2b 76.3b 84.5b 2.3a 25.3a 556a 0.4bc 1015a 28.2ab 1.33a

HP 0.07% 42.9ab 50.8ab 62.2b 69.6b 76.3b 84.6b 2.5a 26.4a 702a 0.4c 935a 25.8b 1.29ab

HP 0.14% 43.7a 52.4a 62.7b 72.1b 77.4b 86.5b 2.7a 28.6a 564a 0.2c 947a 29.2ab 1.26ab

Incorporation 42.5ab 50.8ab 66.8ab 79.0ab 84.7ab 92.7ab 3.1a 33.9a 809a 1.4a 1004a 25.5b 1.25b

Mulch 46.0a 52.2a 71.7a 82.2a 92.7a 102.8a 3.8a 40.3a 930a 1.2ab 950a 36.4a —

Note: Mean separation within columns by Duncan’s multiple range test, p � 0.05, with two individual statistics for loam and loamy sand soils.

Different letters indicate significant difference at p � 0.05. H ¼ plant hight (cm); subscripts indicate different stages in plant growth.

M.TabanandS.A.R.M.Naein

i2048

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 20: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

energy entrance through soil surface relative to the sides. Therefore, a greater

ratio of total energy is lost through sensible heat from the surface relative to

latent heat (greater Bowen ratio), and this reduces the correlation between

latent heat transfer and soil temperature fluctuation when evaporation

potential is increased. Therefore, the correlation between the temperatures

at 2- and 10-cm and the evaporation rate might be minimized or even

reversed when the evaporation potential is increased. For latent heat transfer

through a deeper air-dry surface layer (by a high evaporation potential), a

greater ratio of energy is conducted through the sides of the pots relative to

the soil surface. However, with low evaporation potential, the surface soil

layers air dry later. A more moist surface soil layer causes a deeper thermal

diffusion through soil surface, a greater latent heat relative to sensible heat

transfer, and a more significant and positive correlation between soil tempera-

ture and evaporation rate. Movahedi Naeini and Cook (2000) in a similar

experiment using black pots found an inverse but insignificant correlation

between soil temperature and evaporation rate for both depths (2- and

10-cm) even with a low evaporation potential. In this experiment, painting

pots a white color (increasing albedo) reduced thermal adsorption through

the sides of the pots. Low energy enterance through sides of the pots

possibly increases the ratio of energy adsorbed through the soil surface for

latent heat transfer, resulting in a low Bowen ratio and, therefore, a greater

correlation between evaporation rate and soil temperature. White pots with

increasing ratio of energy exchange through soil surface provide a better

simulation for evaporation conditions in the field.

Mulch, by reducing latent heat transfer, increased soil temperatures at

2- and 10-cm depths. Mulch reduced cumulative evaporation during the transi-

tional stage (energy-limited stage) with both soil textures and both ambient

temperatures. Mulch, by reducing turbulent transfer of water vapor, reduces

the evaporation rate (Oke 1978). At the second stage of evaporation, mulch

effect is lost when MER is reached. The maximum influence of compost is

achieved at MER. After MER, the evaporation would be expected to

continue depending on water transmission properties of soil. Todd et al.

(1991) reported that straw mulch reduced evaporation from soil. This result

is in agreement with Opara-Nadi and Lal (1987), Acharia and Sharma

(1994), Bussier and Cellier (1994), Tolk, Howell, and Evett (1999),

Movahedi Naeini and Cook (2000), and Shangning and Unger (2001). The

occurrence of dry surface layers with evaporation is called self-mulching.

Similar to an organic mulch, self-mulching presents a barrier to water vapor

loss. Therefore, as the self-mulching grows deeper through evaporation, the

relative contribution of organic mulch curbing evaporation is decreased.

Increased ambient temperature advances the development of self-mulching

and hence MER, shortening the effect of organic mulch on evaporation

control. With a deeper self-mulching, the evaporation rate for the control

equals the evaporation rate for the mulch treatment at MER and lags mulch

treatment with lower water content and transmissivity after MER. The

Soil Water Retention 2049

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 21: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

cumulative evaporation from soils with the mulch treatment were equivalent

to bare soil when CER equaled zero and exceeds bare soil when CER gained

negative values (Figure 6). Compost incorporation and Aquasorb did not

influence evaporation rate and latent heat transfer and hence soil temperature

in this experiment.

With a greater hydraulic conductivity, contrary to a coarse-textured soil

(loamy sand), the zone of evaporation is close to the soil surface for a

longer time in the fine-textured soil (loam). Zone of evaporation in pots

with greater energy enterace per unit soil volume was considered a

boundary between soil surface and the shifting seat of evaporation with

maximum rate. Therefore, with a low ambient temperature, most of the evap-

oration and latent heat transfer took place probably from a layer shallower

than the 10-cm depth with a loam soil (above the 10-cm depth where ther-

mometer sensor was placed for resding temperature at this depth). Conse-

quently, mulch, by reducing latent heat transfer, increased diurnal and

nocturnal soil temperature at the 2-cm depth as was sensed by a thermometer

located at this depth (Table 2). Increased ambient temperature lowered the

zone of evaporation (below the 10-cm depth) and hence mulch increased

soil temperature at 2- and 10-cm depths, whereas in loamy sand, at both

ambient temperatures, mulch increased diurnal and nocturnal soil tempera-

tures at 2- and 10-cm depths relative to other treatments. In a coarse-

textured soil with less water content at different potentials (Table 6), overall

for the period of the experiment, the zone of evaporation is possibly a soil

layer deeper than the 10-cm depth. Therefore, mulch, by reducing evaporation

rate and latent heat transfer within this layer, increased soil temperatures at 2-

and 10-cm depths.

The initial bulk density for loamy sand was 1.88 and for loam was

1.46 g cm23. Final bulk densities at the end of experiment 3 were 1.33 and

1.26 g cm23 for loamy sand and loam respectively. Even with slightly

greater bulk densities, coarse-textured soils exhibit a considerable greater

thermal conductivity relative to fine-textured soils at comparable soil water

contents (Hillel, 1980). Because there is no redistribution after saturation of

a soil within pots, soil water loss due to drainage is minor for different

textural classes. Therefore, thermal flux is expected to increase within

loamy sand greater than in loam with identical increments in ambient tempera-

tures. Increased ambient temperatures advances the development of self-

mulching and hence the MER, but because of enhanced greater thermal flux

within coarse-textured soils (loamy sand) especially through the sides of the

pots, latent heat transfer and the respective inhibition by mulch is enhanced

before MER. Mulch presents a barrier to water vapor loss. According to

Ficks’ first law for vapor diffusion, considering a constant diffusion coefficient

by mulch (as a porous medium), the greater the rate of vapor concentration

gradient (latent heat transfer) the greater the fall in vapor flux relative to the

control treatment, resulting in a greater magnitude for MER. With a low

ambient temperature, the loam soil, with greater unsaturated hydraulic

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2050

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 22: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

conductivity, exhibited the longest and greatest MER, whereas Movahedi

Naeini and Cook (2000) reported MER increased but the duration was

reduced with lowering ambient temperatures in a loam soil. They used

black pots in their experiment (with a low albedo), which easily adsorbed

higher quantities of energy from their sides. Contrary to white pots, in their

experiment a lower ratio of energy was absorbed from the soil surface

relative to the sides and thus the effect of the depth of self-mulching was

not as significant as in the white pots. This difference in magnitude of MER

could be due to a greater quantity of energy entering black pots with the

same increment in ambient temperatures.

Movahedi Naeini and Cook (2000) reported that incorporation of compost

increased the evaporation rate early in their pot experiment and reduced the

evaporation rate afterward. They suggested the early increase could be due

to both a high unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and water retention by incor-

poration during earlier parts of the energy-limited period. In their experiment,

incorporation increased soil water retention at potentials greater than –5 kPa

and reduced water retention in potentials below –5 kPa. They stated that high

water retention and the respective pore volume might be expected to increase

unsaturated hydraulic conductivity at potentials above –5 kPa (and hence

evaporation rate at the early stages of their experiment) and the reduced

water retention and respective pore volume to reduce unsaturated hydraulic

conductivity at lower potentials (and hence evaporation rate at the later

stages of evaporation). In experiments 1 and 2, evaporation rate with incorpor-

ation was not changed significantly. At potentials with significantly greater

water retention than control and hence unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, a

greater evaporation is expected. Organic compost could block soil pores

and cancel some of these opposite effects. Jalota and Prihar (1990) also

stated that reduction in bulk density by tillage (and by analogy incorporation)

increased porosity, which presented less resistance to vapor diffusion relative

to an untreated soil. According to Opara-Nadi and Lal (1987), Movahedi

Naeini and Cook (2000), and Shangning and Unger (2001), in most

instances organic mulch more effectively reduces evaporation relative to

incorporation.

As the solute concentration in a soil solution is increased, the hydration

capacity of Aquasorb is diminished and a greater quantity of Aquasorb is

required for the same increment of available soil water capacity. As a soil

dries, its solution solute concentration is gradually increased, resulting in a

considerable reduction in water absorption by Aquasorb (Table 7) that is

released. The water that is released at potentials greater than field capacity

is lost to drainage, and the rest is available to plants. Because quantity of

water release is decreased with any further equal increment in soil solute

concentration through evaporation, a greater release by Aquasorb is

expected at potentials greater than field capacity and within the upper range

of available soil water. Also, a greater release is expected in soils with low

electrical conductivity. Consequently, when mixed with soil, a greater water

Soil Water Retention 2051

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 23: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

release is expected at potentials greater than –0.1 bars or the upper range of

soil-available water (greater than 20.4% for unmixed Aquasorb as

mentioned in the results). In a field, in addition to increased salt concentration

due to drainage, salt concentration is also increased within upper soil layers

after infiltration through evaporation.

Maize seedling emergence was advanced with mulch probably because of

hydrologic amelioration in both soils. Within the first 31 days after sowing in

loam and throughout experiment 3 in loamy sand, mulch increased plant

height relative to other treatments with no effect on yield. Compost mulch

did not supply enough nutrition to have an effect on plant height. A high

rate of Aquasorb increased plant height after emergence up to 24 days.

With a more rapid drainage in loamy sand, the soil surface dries more

quickly, and therefore Aquasorb absorption and subsequent release of water

advances germination and emergence and enhances early seedling growth.

Root weight with the compost incorporation treatment was greater than the

other treatments in loamy sand, possibly as a result of reducing bulk density.

CONCLUSIONS

The hydration capacity of Aquasorb 3005A (and also other current HPs) is

highly sensitive to the electrical conductivity and solute concentration of

the soil solution. The commercial recommendations for using Aquasorb in

soils are normally based on water retention at different pressure steps for a

pure Aquasorb (not mixed with a soil). Proper recommendations must

consider soils with different electrical conductivities in a saturated extract.

Even in a soil with a low electrical conductivity (less than 1 ds/m), a

greater quantity of Aquasorb is needed for increasing soil-available water

content than commercial recommendations. These recommendations must

also consider soil solution concentration variations and the respective soil

water release at potentials greater than field capacity. In pots, the drainage

water and also the soil water tension at field capacity are considerably less

than field condition. Therefore, the release of water to drainage by

Aquasorb (and compost incorporation) is minor relative to the field. By this

analogy, even a greater quantity of Aquasorb is required in the field than in

pots.

In general, pot experiments fail to simulate field conditions. Energy trans-

actions take place from the sides and the soil surface in pots, resulting in

diurnal and nocturnal latent heat transfer at the surface and a warmer depth.

In a field, there is no nocturnal evaporation due to temperature, and vapor

pressure inversion and diurnal temperature gradients are downward. In

addition to nocturnal evaporation in pots, the higher energy transaction per

unit volume of soil in pots enhances evaporation relative to a field soil with

low transmissivity. Increasing the albedo of pot surface by painting the pots

white and also increasing pot volume reduced the rate of energy transfer

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2052

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 24: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

through the sides of the pots relative to their surface, closing the gap between

pot and field for energy transaction per unit soil volume. When water rises

from subsoil to upper layers or downward redistribution of water after infiltra-

tion are significant, the height of the pots is also important in comparing

overall outcomes of pot and field experiments. In a short column of soil (in

pots), the difference in transmissional properties of different textural classes

is minimized.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Mohammad Zaman Alaodin and Mohammad Ajami for

their technical assistance and Saeed Hassani for statistical advice. This

research was funded by Gorgan University of Agriculture (Iran).

REFERENCES

Acharia, C.L. and Sharma, P.D. (1994) Tillage and mulch effects on soil physicalenvironment, root growth, nutrient uptake and yield of maize and wheat onAlfisol in northwest India. Soil and Tillage Research, 32: 291–302.

Ali Ehyaei, M. (1997) Methods of Soil Chemical Analysis; Agricultural Institute forResearch, Instruction, and Extension: Tehran, Iran, Technical publication no. 1024(in Farsi).

Al-Harbi, A.R., Al-Omran, A.M., Shalaby, A.A., and Choudhary, M.I. (1999) Efficacyof a hydrophilic polymer declines with time in greenhouse experiments.Hortscience, 34: 223–224.

Al-Omran, A.M., Mustafa, M.A., and Shalaby, A.A. (1997) Intermittent evaporationfrom soil columns as affected by a gel-forming conditioner. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 51: 1539–1599.

Austin, M.E. and Bondari, K. (1992) Hydrogel as a field medium amendment forblueberry plants. HortScience, 27 (9): 973–974.

Badaruddin, M., Reynolds, M.P., and Ageeb, A.A. (1999) Wheat management in weatenvironments: Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers, irrigation and mulching.Agronomy Journal, 91: 975–983.

Banaei, M.H. (1973) A Report on Soil Survey, Land Classification and Irrigation Capa-bility for a Region Located South of the Gorgan River; Soil and Water ResearchInstitute: Tehran, Iranpublication no. 368. (in Farsi).

Blodgett, A.M., Betti, D.J., White, J.W., and Elliott, G.C. (1993) Hydrophilic polymersand wetting agents affected absorption and evaporation water loss. Hortscience,28 (6): 633–635.

Bowman, D.C. and Evans, R.Y. (1991) Calcium inhibition of polyacrylamidegel hydration is partially reversible by potassium. Hortscience, 26 (8): 1063–1065.

Bowman, D.C., Evans, R.Y., and Paul, J.L. (1990) Fertilizer salts reduce hydrationof polyacrylamid gel and affect physical properties of gel-amended containermedia. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 115 (3):382–386.

Soil Water Retention 2053

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 25: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

Bussier, F. and Cellier, P. (1994) Modification of the soil temperature and water

content regimes by a crop residue mulch. Experiment and Modeling Agriculture

and Forest Meteorology, 68: 1–28.

Choudhary, M.I., Shalaby, A.A., and Al-Omran, A.M. (1995) Water holding capacity

and evaporation of calcareous soils as affected by four synthetic polymers.

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 66: 350–355.Gehring, J.M. and Lewis, A.J. (1980) Effect of hydrogel on wilting and moisture stress

of bedding plants. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,

105 (4): 511–513.

Hillel, D. (1980) Applications of Soil Physics; Academic Press: New York.

Huttermann, A., Zommorodi, M., and Reise, K. (1999) Addition of hydrogels to soil for

prolonging the survival of pinus helpensis seedlings subjected to drought. Soil and

Tillage Research, 50: 295–304.

Jalota, S.K. and Prihar, S.S. (1990) Bare soil evaporation in relation to tillage.

Advances in Soil Science, 12: 187–212.Johnson, M.S. (1984a) Effect of soluble salts on water absorption by gel forming soil

conditioners. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, 35: 1063–1066.

Johnson, M.S. (1984b) The effects of gel forming polyacrylamids on moisture storage

in sandy soils. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, 35: 1196–1200.

Johnson, M.N. and Leah, R.T. (1990) Effects of superabsorbent polyacrylamides

on efficiency of water use by crop seedlings. Journal of Science of Food and

Agriculture, 52: 431–434.

Johnson, M.S. and Veltkamp, C.J. (1984) Structure and functioning of water

storing agricultural polyacrylamide. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture,36: 789–793.

Klute, A. (1986) Methods of soil analysis. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, Part I;

American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America: Madison,

Wisconsin.

Miller, D.E. (1979) Effect of H-span on water retained by soils after irrigation. Soil

Science Society of America Journal, 43: 628–629.

Movahedi Naeini, S.A.R. (1998) Physical and nutritional amendment of topsoil using

compost waste. PhD thesis. Imperial Collage at Wye, University of London: London,

U.K.Movahedi Naeini, S.A.R. and Cook, H.F. (2000) Influence of municipal waste compost

amendment on soil water and evaporation. Communications in Soil Science and

Plant Analysis, 31: 3147–3161.

Oke, T.R. (1978) Boundary Layer Climates; Methuen & Co Ltd: Britain, U.K., 372.

Opara-Nadi, O.A. and Lal, R. (1987) Influence of method of mulch application on

growth and yield of tropical root crops in southeastern Nigeria. Soil and Tillage

Research, 9: 217–230.

Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., and Keeney, D.R. (1986) Methods of soil analysis. Chemical

and Microbiological Properties, Part 2; American Society of Agronomy, Soil

Science Society of America: Madison, Wisconsin.Peterson, D. (2002.) Hydrophilic polymers and uses in landscape.Horticulture Science.

75, http://www.horticulture.coafes.umn.edu/vd/h5015/01papers/hydrogel.htmSAS. (1996) Statistics Edition, Version 6/12; SAS Institute: Cary, North Carolina.

Seybold, C.A. (1994) Polyacrylamide review: Soil conditioning and environmental

fact. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 25: 3147–3161.

Shangning, J.I. and Unger, P.W. (2001) Soil water accumulation under different pre-

cipitation, potential evaporation and straw mulch conditions. Soil Science Society

of America Journal, 65: 442–448.

M. Taban and S. A. R. M. Naeini2054

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 26: Effect of Aquasorb and Organic Compost Amendments on Soil Water Retention and Evaporation with Different Evaporation Potentials and Soil Textures

Shekour, G.M., Brathwate, R.A.I., and McDavid, C.R. (1987) Dry season sweet cornresponse to mulching and antitranspirations. Agronomy Journal, 79: 629–631.

Silberbush, M., Adar, E., and De Malach, Y. (1993a) Use of an hydrophilic polymerto improve water storage and availability to crops grown in sand dunes, I: Cornirrigation by trickling. Agricultural Water Management, 23: 303–313.

Silberbush, M., Adar, E., and De Malach, Y. (1993b) Use of an hydrophilic polymerto improve water storage and availability to crops grown in sand dunes, II:Cabbage irrigated by sprinkling with different water salinities. Agricultural WaterManagement, 23: 315–317.

Sivapalan, S. (2001) Effect of Polymer on Soil Water Holding Capacity and PlantWater Use Efficiency, Proceedings of the 10th Australian Agronomy Conference,Hobart, Australia.

Todd, R.W., Klocke, N.L., Herger, G.W., and Parkhurst, A.M. (1991) Evaporationfrom soil influenced by crop shading, crop residue and wetting regime. Transactionsof the ASAE, 34: 461–466.

Tolk, J.A., Howell, T.A., and Evett, S.R. (1999) Effect of mulch, irrigation and soiltype on water use and yield of maize. Soil and Tillage Research, 50: 137–141.

Tue, Z.P., Armitage, A.M., and Vines, H.M. (1985) Influence of an anti transpirant anda hydrogel on net photosynthesis and water loss of cineraria during water stress.HortScience, 20 (3): 386–388.

Unger, P., Parker, W., and Jessie, J. (1976) Evaporation reduction from soil withsorghum and cotton residues. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 40: 938–942.

Wallace, A. and Terry, R. (1998) Handbook of Soil Conditioners; Marcel Dekker:New York.

Wang, Y.T. and Gregg, L.L. (1990) Hydrophilic polymers—their response to soilamendments and effect on properties of a soil-less potting mix. Journal of theAmerican Society for Horticultural Science, 115 (6): 943–948.

Wofford, D.J. (1989) Use of cross-linked polyacrylamide in agriculture for increasingyield or reducing irrigation. File://A:\Orzol.htm.

Woodhouse, J. and Johnson, M.S. (1991) Effect of superabsorbent on survival andgrowth of crop seedlings. Agricultural Water Management, 20: 63–70.

Soil Water Retention 2055

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:39

15

Oct

ober

201

4