Effects of Soil Pore Size Distribution on Integral Energy of Different Soil Water Ranges

Authors

1 Researcher of Soil and Water Research Department, Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Mashhad, Iran

2 Professor of Soil Science Engineering Department, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

3 Instructor of Irrigation and Soil Physics Department, Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

4 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Soil pore size distribution (SPSD) is one of the most important soil physical quality indices which reflect soil inherent characteristics and its management system. The soil water integral energy (EI) is an index that represents the amount of energy needed to uptake a mass unit of soil water by plants. In this research, we studied the effects of SPSD curves location and shape parameters on EI index of different soil water ranges in medium to coarse-textured soilsof Torogh Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Station in Khorasan-Razavi province. Thirty points with different soil textures and organic carbon contents were selected. After conducting required laboratory and field measurements using standard methods, the soil moisture release curve (SMRC) parameters, the SPSD curve parameters, plant available water (PAW) and least limiting water range (LLWR) which were measured in matric heads of 100 and 330 cm for the field capacity, integral water capacity (IWC) and EI of the mentioned soil water ranges were calculated and the relationships between the SPSD curve location and shape parameters and EI values (for PAW100, PAW330, LLWR100, LLWR330 and IWC) were statistically analyzed. The results showed that, in medium to coarse-textured soils, increasing the equivalent pore diameter and reducing the diversity of soil pore sizes along with the tendency of the SPSD curves to be more peaked in the center and more tailed at the two ends compared with lognormal distribution could lead to lower EI and easier uptake of water by plants in different soil water ranges. 

Keywords

References

  1. صاحب ­جمع ع. ا. 1381. مطالعات تفصیلی دقیق خاکشناسی و طبقه­بندی اراضی ایستگاه تحقیقات کشاورزی طرق- استان خراسان­رضوی. گزارش نهایی. شماره 1146. مؤسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب
  2. .Asgarzadeh, H., M. R. Mosaddeghi, A. A. Mahboubi, A. Nosrati, and A. R. Dexter. 2010. Soil water availability for plants as quantified by conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity. Plant and Soil 335: 229–244.
  3. Asgarzadeh, H., M. R. Mosaddeghi, A. A. Mahboubi, A. Nosrati, and A. R. Dexter. 2011. Integral energy of conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity for better characterization of water availability and soil physical quality. Geoderma 166: 34– 42.
  4. Castellini, M., M. Niedda, M. Pirastru, and D. Ventrella. 2014. Temporal changes of soil physical quality under two residue management systems. Soil Use and Management 30: 423–434.
  5. Castellini, M., M. Pirastru, M. Niedda, and D. Ventrella. 2013. Comparing physical quality of tilled and no-tilled soils in an almond orchard in South Italy. Italian Journal of Agronomy 8:149–157.
  6. Groenevelt, P. H., C. D. Grant, and S. Semetsa. 2001. A new procedure to determine soil water availability. Australian Journal of Soil Research 39: 577–598.
  7. Hao, X., B. C. Ball, J. L. B. Culley, M. R. Carter, and G. W. Parkin. 2007. Soil density and porosity. p. 743–760. In Carter, M. R., and E. G. Gregorich (Ed.) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science, Taylor and Francis.
  8. Kroetsch, D., and C. Wang. 2007. Particle size distribution. p. 713–725. In Carter, M. R., and E. G. Gregorich (Ed.) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science, Taylor and Francis.  
  9. Minasny, B., and A. B. McBratney. 2003. Integral energy as a measure of soil–water availability. Plant and Soil 249: 253–262.
  10. Reynolds, W. D., and G. Clarke Topp. 2007. Soil water desorption and imbibition: tension and pressure techniques. p. 981–997. In Carter, M. R., and E. G. Gregorich (Ed.) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science, Taylor and Francis.
  11. Reynolds, W. D., C. F. Drury, C. S. Tan, C. A. Fox, and X. M. Yang. 2009. Use of indicators and pore volume-function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma 152: 252–263.
  12. Reynolds, W. D., C. F. Drury, X. M. Yang, and C. S. Tan. 2008. Optimal soil physical quality inferred through structural regression and parameter interactions. Geoderma 146: 466–474.
  13. Reynolds, W. D., C. F. Drury, X. M. Yang, C. A. Fox, C. S. Tan, and T. Q. Zhang. 2007. Land management effects on the near-surface physical quality of a clay loam soil. Soil and Tillage Research 96: 316–330.
  14. Shahab, H., H. Emami, G. H. Haghnia, and A. Karimi. 2013. Pore size distribution as a soil physical quality index for agricultural and pasture soils in north-eastern Iran. Pedosphere 23(3): 312–320.
  15. Van Genuchten, M.Th. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44: 892–898.
Iranian Journal of Soil Research
Volume 31, Issue 3
December 2017
Pages 463-471

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics