Plant and Soil

, Volume 335, Issue 1–2, pp 229–244 | Cite as

Soil water availability for plants as quantified by conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity

  • Hossein Asgarzadeh
  • Mohammad Reza Mosaddeghi
  • Ali Akbar Mahboubi
  • Akram Nosrati
  • Anthony Roger Dexter
Regular Article

Abstract

There are different approaches to define the soil available water (SAW) for plants. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the SAW values of 12 arable soils from Hamadan province (western Iran) calculated by plant available water (PAW), least limiting water range (LLWR) and integral water capacity (IWC) approaches and to explore their relations with Dexter’s index of soil physical quality (i.e., S-value). Soil water retention and mechanical resistance were determined on the intact samples which were taken from the 5–10 cm layer. For calculation of LLWR and IWC, the van Genuchten-Mualem model was fitted to the observed soil water retention data. Two matric suctions (h) of 100 and 330 cm were used for the field capacity (FC). There were significant differences (P < 0.01) between the SAW values calculated by PAW100, PAW330, LLWR100, LLWR330 and IWC. The highest (i.e., 0.210 cm3 cm−3) and the lowest (i.e., 0.129 cm3 cm−3) means of SAW were calculated for the IWC and LLWR330, respectively. The upper limit of LLWR330 for all of the soils was h of 330 cm, and that of LLWR100 (except for one soil that was air-filled porosity of 0.1 cm3 cm−3) was h of 100 cm. The lower limit of LLWR330 and LLWR100 for five soils was h of 15,000 cm and for seven soils was mechanical resistance of 2 MPa. The IWC values were smaller than those of LLWR100 for two soils, equal to those of LLWR100 for three soils and greater than those of LLWR100 for the rest. There is, therefore, a tendency to predict more SAW using the IWC approach than with the LLWR approach. This is due to the chosen critical soil limits and gradual changes of soil limitations vs. water content in the IWC calculation procedure. Significant relationships of SAW with bulk density or relative bulk density were found but not with the clay and organic matter contents. Linear relations between IWC and LLWR100 or LLWR330 were found as: IWC = −0.0514 + 1.4438LLWR100, R2 = 0.83; and IWC = −0.0405 + 2.0465LLWR330, R2 = 0.84, respectively (both significant at P < 0.01). Significant relationships were obtained between the SAW values and S indicating the suitability of the index S to explain the availability of soil water for plants even when complicated approaches like IWC are considered. Overall, the results demonstrate the importance of the choice of the approach to be used and its critical limits in the estimation of the soil available water to plants.

Keywords

Soil available water content Soil water retention Soil mechanical resistance Least limiting water range Integral water capacity Soil physical quality 

References

  1. Bartholomeus RP, Witte JPM, van Bodegom PM, van Dam JC, Aerts R (2008) Critical soil conditions for oxygen stress to plant roots: substituting the Feddes-function by a process-based model. J Hydrol 360:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bengough AG, Bransby MF, Hans J, McKenna SJ, Roberts TJ, Valentine TA (2006) Root responses to soil physical conditions; growth dynamics from field to cell. J Exp Bot 57:437–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Betz CL, Allmaras RR, Copeland SM, Randall GW (1998) Least limiting water range: traffic and long term tillage influences in a Webster soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:1384–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beutler AN, Centurion JF, da Silva AP (2005) Soil resistance to penetration and least limiting water range for soybean yield in a Haplustox from Brazil. Braz Arch Biol Technol 48:863–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouyoucos GJ (1962) Hydrometer method improved for making particles size analyses of soils. Agron J 56:464–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan KY, Oates A, Swan AD, Hayes RC, Dear BS, Peoples MB (2006) Agronomic consequences of tractor wheel compaction on a clay soil. Soil Till Res 89:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. da Silva AP, Kay BD (1997) Estimating least limiting water range of soils from properties and management. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:877–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. da Silva AP, Kay BD (2004) Linking process capability analysis and least limiting water range for assessing soil physical quality. Soil Till Res 79:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. da Silva AP, Imhoff S, Kay BD (2004) Plant response to mechanical resistance and air-filled porosity of soils under conventional and no-tillage system. Sci Agric 61:451–456Google Scholar
  10. da Silva AP, Kay BD, Perfect E (1994) Characterization of the least limiting water range of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:1775–1781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Vos B, Van Meirvenne M, Quataert P, Deckers J, Muys B (2005) Predictive quality of pedotransfer functions for estimating bulk density of forest soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:500–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dexter AR (2004a) Soil physical quality; Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma 120:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dexter AR (2004b) Soil physical quality; Part II. Friability, tillage, tilth and hard-setting. Geoderma 120:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dexter AR (2004c) Soil physical quality; Part III: Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and general conclusions about S-theory. Geoderma 120:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dexter AR (2006) Applications of S-theory in tillage research. Proceedings of International Soil Tillage Research Organisation, 17th Triennial Conference 28 August–3 September, Kiel, Germany pp 429–442Google Scholar
  16. Dexter AR, Czyż EA, Gaţe OP (2007) A method for prediction of soil penetration resistance. Soil Till Res 93:412–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dexter AR, Czyż EA, Richard G, Reszkowska A (2008) A user-friendly water retention function that takes account of the textural and structural pore spaces in soil. Geoderma 143:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaţe OP, Czyż EA, Dexter AR (2006) Soil physical quality, S, as a basis for relationships between some key physical properties of arable soils. Proceedings of International Soil Tillage Research Organisation, 17th Triennial Conference 28 August–3 September, Kiel, Germany pp 258–264Google Scholar
  19. Groenevelt PH, Grant CD, Murray RS (2004) On water availability in saline soils. Aust J Soil Res 42:833–840Google Scholar
  20. Groenevelt PH, Grant CD, Semetsa S (2001) A new procedure to determine soil water availability. Aust J Soil Res 39:577–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall DG, Reeve MJ, Thomasson AJ, Wright VF (1977) Water retention, porosity and density of field soils. Technical Monograph No. 9. Soil Survey of England and Wales, Harpenden. pp 75Google Scholar
  22. Jones CA (1983) Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities for root growth. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:1208–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Junior VV, Carvalho MP, Dafonte J, Freddi OS, Vazquez EV, Ingaramo OE (2006) Spatial variability of soil water content and mechanical resistance of Brazilian ferralsol. Soil Till Res 85:166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jury WA, Gardner WR, Gardner WH (1991) Soil physics, 5th edn. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkham MB (2005) Principles of soil and plant water relations. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 500Google Scholar
  26. Klute A (ed) (1986) Methods of soil analysis: part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronomy monograph vol 9, 2nd edn. ASA, WIGoogle Scholar
  27. Lapen DR, Topp GC, Gregorich EG, Curnoe WE (2004) Least limiting water range indicators of soil quality and corn production, eastern Ontario, Canada. Soil Till Res 78:151–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leao TP, da Silva AP (2004) A simplified Excel algorithm for estimating the least limiting water range of soils. Sci Agric 61:649–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leao TP, da Silva AP, Macedo MCM, Imhoff S, Euclides VPB (2006) Least limiting water range: a potential indicator of changes in near-surface soil physical quality after the conversion of Brazilian Savanna into pasture. Soil Till Res 88:279–285Google Scholar
  30. Leao TP, da Silva AP, Perfect E, Tormena CA (2005) An algorithm for calculating the least limiting water range of soils. Agron J 97:1210–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Letey J (1985) Relationship between soil physical properties and crop production. Adv Soil Sci 1:277–294Google Scholar
  32. Maclean AH, Yager TV (1972) Available water in Zambian soils in relation to pressure plate measurements and particle size analysis. Soil Sci 133:23–29Google Scholar
  33. Meriaux S (1982) Soil and water. In: Bonneau M, Souchier B (eds) Constituents and properties of soils. Academic Press, London, pp 302–354Google Scholar
  34. Minasny B, McBratney AB (2003) Integral energy as a measure of soil–water availability. Plant Soil 249:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mosaddeghi MR, Morshedizad M, Mahboubi AA, Dexter AR, Schulin R (2009) Laboratory evaluation of a model for soil crumbling for prediction of the optimum soil water content for tillage. Soil Till Res 105:242–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mualem Y (1976) A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media. Water Resour Res 12:513–522Google Scholar
  37. Munns R (2002) Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:239–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Nemenyi M, Mesterhazi PA, Milics G (2006) An application of tillage force mapping as a cropping management tools. Biosys Eng 94(3):351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olness A, Archer D (2005) Effect of organic carbon on available water in soil. Soil Sci 170:90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) (1992) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd edn. ASA/SSSA, Madison, Agron. Monog. 9, pp. 325–340Google Scholar
  41. Penfold CL (1999) Influence of soil air-filled porosity on primary root length and growth of radiate pine. MSc Thesis New Zealand School of Forestry, University of CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  42. Reichert JM, Suzuki LEAS, Reinert DJ, Horn R, Håkansson I (2009) Reference bulk density and critical degree-of-compactness for no-till crop production in subtropical highly weathered soils. Soil Till Res 102:242–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reynolds WD, Bowman BT, Drury CF, Tan CS, Lu X (2002) Indicators of good soil physical quality: density and storage parameters. Geoderma 110:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reynolds WD, Drury CF, Tan CS, Fox CA, Yang XM (2009) Use of indicators and pore volume-function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma 152:252–263Google Scholar
  45. Reynolds WD, Drury CF, Yang XM, Fox CA, Tan CS, Zhang TQ (2007) Land management effects on the near-surface physical quality of a clay loam soil. Soil Till Res 96:316–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reynolds WD, Drury CF, Yang XM, Tan CS (2008) Optimal soil physical quality inferred through structural regression and parameter interactions. Geoderma 146:466–474Google Scholar
  47. Taylor HM, Roberson GM, Parker JJ (1966) Soil strength–root penetration relations for medium- to coarse-textured soil materials. Soil Sci 102:18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Genuchten MTh (1980) A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Genuchten MTh, Leij FJ, Yates SR (1991) The RETC code for quantifying the hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils. EPA/600/2-91/065, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK, pp 93Google Scholar
  50. Veihmeyer FJ, Hendrickson AH (1927) The relation of soil moisture to cultivation and plant growth. Proc 1st Intern Congr Soil Sci 3:498–513Google Scholar
  51. Veihmeyer FJ, Hendrickson AH (1931) The moisture equivalent as a measure of the field capacity of soils. Soil Sci 32:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Veihmeyer FJ, Hendrickson AH (1949) Methods of measuring field capacity and wilting percentages of soils. Soil Sci 68:75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Verma S, Sharma PK (2008) Long-term effects of organics, fertilizers and cropping systems on soil physical productivity evaluated using a single value index (NLWR). Soil Till Res 98:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Webster R, Beckett PHT (1972) Matric suctions to which soils in South Central England drain. J Agric Sci Camb 78:379–387Google Scholar
  55. White RE (1997) Principles and practice of soil science. The soil as a natural resource, 3rd edn. Blackwell Science, Carlton, VicGoogle Scholar
  56. Yoo G, Nissen TM, Wander MM (2006) Use of physical properties to predict the effects of tillage practices on organic matter dynamics in three Illinois soils. J Environ Qual 35:1576–1583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hossein Asgarzadeh
    • 1
  • Mohammad Reza Mosaddeghi
    • 2
  • Ali Akbar Mahboubi
    • 1
  • Akram Nosrati
    • 1
  • Anthony Roger Dexter
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Soil Science, College of AgricultureBu-Ali Sina UniversityHamadanIran
  2. 2.Department of Soil Science, College of AgricultureIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran
  3. 3.Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation (IUNG)PulawyPoland

Personalised recommendations