Comparison of Different Soil Water Retention Curve Models for Evaluation of Soil Quality Index (S) in Paddy Soils

Authors

1 PhD student, Soil Science, Agricultural Faculty, Shiraz University

2 Associate Professor., Soil Science Department, Agricultural Faculty, Shiraz University

3 Associate Professor., Soil and Water Research Institute of Iran

4 Associate Professor., Soil Science Department, Agricultural Faculty, Guilan University

Abstract

Soil quality is not directly measurable, and it is determined from soil quality indicators. The slope of the water retention curve at its inflection point is one of these indices. The S associated with different factors, for examples, organic carbon, bulk density, texture and soil structure. The purpose of this study was to compare three models for determining soil physical quality index and assessing the physical quality of paddy soils using this index. So, 35 distributed soil samples were collected from paddy soils in eastern and western parts of Guilan province, and texture, bulk density, organic carbon, saturation water content, water content at field capacity and wilting point were measured. The Brooks and Corey, van Genuchten, and Groenevelt and Grant models were used to determine the S index. The RETC program was used to estimate the parameters of the van Genuchten model, which were later used to estimate the slope of the water retention curve at its inflection point. By applying the MATLAB software, the parameters of Brooks and Corey (1964) and Groenevelt and Grant (2004) models were determined and then S index was obtained. The indicators of geometric mean error ratio (GMER), geometric standard deviation of error ratio (GSDER), mean error (ME) and normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) were used to evaluate the goodness of fits for the models. The Groenevelt and Grant model could estimate the SMRC with the minimum values of ME and NRMSE at all tensions. Furthermore, the GMER and GSDER values of this model at all tensions were closer to 1 as compared to the other models. The Groenevelt and Grant model with ME=-0.015 and NRMSE=0.4 was the best model compared with the other models. Also, the geometric mean error ratio and geometric standard deviation of error ratio (GMER=0.85, GSDER=1.33) were lower in Groenevelt and Grant model. Besides, results showed that physical quality of the studied soils was good. The significant correlations between S and clay, water content at wilting point, and bulk density were negative (P<0.01); whereas its correlation with available water and the other soil attributes were positive (P<0.05). Although some investigators believe that S cannot be a good index of soil physical quality, the determined S index of the studied paddy soils showed significant correlation with attributes affecting the physical quality of soils.  Therefore, by applying the S quality index, it could be possible to compare the physical conditions of different soils and the effect of various management practices on them instead of measurements of several attributes affecting the soil physical quality. The physical quality index of the studied paddy soils was greater than 0.035, which indicated that the quality of the soils was good for paddy production. 

Keywords

References

  1. اصغری، ش.، ا. روزبان، و ح. خداوردیلو. 1395. اشتقاق توابع انتقالی برای برآورد مقاومت فروروی، پایداری خاکدانه و پارامترهای مدل منحنی مشخصه ون­گنوختن در اراضی جنگلی فندقلوی اردبیل. نشریه دانش آب و خاک. جلد 26، شماره 2، صفحات: 148-129.
  2. امامی، ح.، ا. لکزیان و م. مهاجرپور. 1389. بررسی رابطه بین شیب منحنی رطوبتی و بعضی از ویژگی­های فیزیکی کیفیت خاک. نشریه آب و خاک. جلد 24، شماره 5، صفحات: 1035- 1027.
  3. امامی، ح.، م. ر. نیشابوری، م. شرفاء و ع .ا. لیاقت. 1388. تخمین رطوبت نقطه عطف منحنی مشخصه با استفاده از ویژگی­های زود­یافت خاک. مجله آب و خاک (علوم و صنایع کشاورزی)، جلد 23، شماره 2، صفحات: 103- 95.
  4. امامی، ح.، م. شرفاء، م. ر. نیشابوری و ع. ا. لیاقت. 1387. برآورد شاخص کیفیت فیزیکی خاک با استفاده از ویژگی­های زود یافت خاک در تعدادی از خاکهای شور و آهکی. مجله تحقیقات آب و خاک ایران علوم کشاورزی ایران، دوره 39، شماره 1، صفحات: 46- 39.
  5. شهاب آرخازلو، ح.، ح. امامی، غ.ح. حق­نیا و ع.ر. کریمی کارویه. 1390. مقایسه منحنی توزیع اندازه منافذ خاک اراضی مرتعی با اراضی کشاورزی به عنوان شاخص کیفیت فیزیکی خاک. دوازدهمین کنگره علوم خاک. تبریز.
  6. علیزاده، ا. 1386. فیزیک خاک، چاپ دوم، انتشارات دانشگاه امام رضا (ع)، مشهد، ایران.
  7. محمدی، ج.، ح. خادمی و م. نائل. 1384. بررسی تغییر پذیری کیفیت خاک در اکوسیستم­های انتخابی در منطقه زاگرس مرکزی. مجله علوم و فنون کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی. جلد 9، شماره 3، صفحه: 120- 105.
  8. Armenise, E., M.A. Redmile-Gordon, A.M. Atellacci, A. Ciccarese and P. Rubino. 2013. Developing a soil quality index to compare soil fitness for agricultural use under different managements in the Mediterranean environment. Soil Till. Res. 130: 91-98.
  9. 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 Soil, 335: 229-244.
  10. Baumgartl, T., J. Rostek, and R. Horn. 2000. Internal and external stresses affecting the water retention curve. In: Horn, R., van den Akker, J., Arvidsson, J. (Eds.), Soil Compaction: Distribution, Processes and ConsequencesAdvances in GeoEcology, vol. 32. Catena-Verlag, Reiskirchen, pp. 13– 21.
  11. Blake, G.R., and K.H. Hartge. 1986. Bulk density. p. 363-375. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
  12. Brooks R.H. and A.T. Corey. 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media. Colorado State University. Hydrol. 3: 27.
  13. Betz, D.L., R.R. Allmaras, S.M. Copeland, and G.W. Randal. 1998. Least limiting water range: traffic and long-term tillage influences in a Webster soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62:1384-1393.
  14. Beutler, A.N., J.F. Centurion, M.A.P.C. Centurion, O.S. Freddi, E.L. Sousaneto, C.L. Leonel, and A.P. Dasilva. 2007. Traffic soil compaction of an Oxisol related to soybean development and yield. Sci. Agric. 64:608- 615.
  15. Boonet, F.R., H.M.G. Werf, B. Kroesbergen, B.A. Haag, and A. Boers. 1986. The effect of compaction of arable layer in sandy soils on the growth of maize for silage. I. Critical potentials in relation to soil aeration and mechanical impedance. Netherlands J. Agric. Res. 34:155-171.
  16. Cunha, E.Q., L.F. Stone, J.A.A. Moreira, E.P.B. Ferreira, A.D. Didonet, and W.M. Leandro. 2011. Sistemas de preparo do solo e culturas de cobertura na produção orgânica de feijão e milho. I - Atributos físicos do solo. R. Bras. Ci. Solo. 35:589-602.
  17. Dane. J. M., and J. W. Hopmans. 2002. Pressure plate extractor. p: 688- 690. In J. M. Dane and G. C. Topp. (Eds.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Book series. 5. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
  18. Dexter, A.R. 2004a. Soil physical quality. Part I: Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma, 120: 201-214.
  19. Dexter, A.R. 2004b. Soil physical quality. Part II: Friability, tillage, tilth and hard-setting. Geoderma, 120: 215–226.
  20. Dexter A.R., E.A. Czyz, G. Richard, and A. Reszkowska. 2008. A user-friendly water retention function that takes account of the textural and structural pore spaces in soil. Geoderma, 143: 143-253.
  21. Gardner, W.R. 1970. Post-irrigation movement of soil water. Water Resour. Res. 6: 851-861.
  22. Gate, O.P., E.A. Czyz, and A.R. Dexter. 2006. “Soil physical quality, S, as a basis for relationships between some key physical properties of arable soils”. In R. Horn, H. Fleige, S. Peth & X. Peng (Eds.) Soil Management for Sustainability. Advances in Geoecology 38, Catena Verlag, Germany, pp. 102-109.
  23. Gee, G.W., and J.W. Bauder. 1986. Particle size analysis. p. 383-411. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
  24. Gimenz, D., W.J. Rawls, Y. Pachepsky, and J.P.C. Watt. 2001. Prediction of a pore distribution factor from soil textural and mechanical parameters. Soil Sci. J. 166: 79-88.
  25. Groenevelt, P.H., and C.D. Grant. 2004. A new model for the soil water retention curve that solves the problem of residual water contents. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 55: 479-485.
  26. Gue´rif, J., G. Richard, C. Du¨ rr, J.M. Machet, S. Recous, and J. Roger- Estrade. 2001. A review of tillage effects on crop residue management, seedbed conditions and seedling establishment. Soil Till. Res. 61, 13– 32.
  27. Herrick, J.E. 2000. Soil quality: an indicator of sustainable land management. Appllied Soil Ecology. 15: 75–83.
  28. Jones, R.J.A., 1983. Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities foor root growth. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47: 1208-1211.
  29. Karlen, D.L., M.J. Mausbach, J.W. Doran, R.G. Cline, R.F. Harris, and G.E. Schuman. 1997. Soil quality: A concept, defenition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61: 4-10.
  30. Khlosi, M., W.M. Cornelis, S. Douak, M.T. Van Genuchten, and D. Gabriel. 2008. Performance evaluation of models that describe the soil water retention curve between saturation and oven dryness. Vadose Zone J. 7: 87-96.
  31. Leir, Q.J. 2014. Revisiting the S index for soil physical quality and its use in Brazil. R. Bras. Ci. Solo. 38: 1-10.
  32. Mc Lean, E.O. 1982. Soil pH and lime requirement. p. 199-224. In A.L. Page et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
  33. Nelson, D.W., and L.E. Sommers. 1982. Total carbon, Organic carbon and Organic matter. p. 539-580.  In A.L. Page et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
  34. Pagliai, M., N. Vignozzi, and S. Pellegrini. 2004. Soil structure and the effect of management practices. Soil Till. Res. 79, 131–143.
  35. Rahimi H., E. Pazira, and F. Tajik. 2000. Effect of soil organic matter, electrical conductivity and sodium adsorption ratio on tensile strength of aggregates. Soil Till. Res. 54:145-153.
  36. Reynolds, W.D., C.F. Drury, C.S.Tan, C.A. Fox, and X.M. Yang. 2009. Use of indicators and pore volume function characterestics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma, 152: 252-263.   
  37. Siegel-Issem, C.M., J.A. Burger, R.F. Powers, F. Ponder, and S.C. Patterson. 2005. Seedling root growth as a function of soil density and water content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:215-226.
  38. Tietje, O. and Hennings, V. 1996. Accuracy of the saturated hydraulic conductivity prediction by pedotransfer functions compared to the variability within FAO textural classes. Geoderma, 69: 71-84.
  39. Tormena, C.A., A.P. Dasilva, S.D.C Imhoff, and A.R. Dexter. 2008. Quantification of the soil physical quality of a tropical Oxisol using the S index. Sci. Agric. 65:56-60.
  40. Toung, T. P., M. S. C. Wopereis, J. A. Marques, and M. J. Kropff. 1994. Mechanisms and control of percolation losses in puddle rice fields. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58: 1794-1803.
  41. Tran ba, L., Kh. Le Van, S. Van Elsacker, and E. M. Cornelis. 2016. Effect of cropping system on physical properties of clay soil under intensive rice cultivation. Land Degrad. Develop. 27: 973-982.
  42. Van Genuchten M.Th. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44: 892-898.
  43. Vizitiu, O., I. Calciu, I. Panoiu, and C. Simota. 2011. Soil physical quality as quantified by s index and hydrophysical indices of some soils from Arges hydrographic basin. Research J. Agric. Sci. 43(3): 249-256.
  44. Wopereis, M. C. S., M. J. Kropff., J. H. M. Wosten, and J. Bouma. 1993. Sampling strategies for measurement of soil hydraulic properties to predict rice yield using simulation models. Geoderma, 59: 1- 20.
Iranian Journal of Soil Research
Volume 31, Issue 4
March 2018
Pages 509-523

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics