Plant and Soil

, Volume 391, Issue 1–2, pp 307–320 | Cite as

The role of pebbles in the water dynamics of a stony soil cultivated with young poplars

  • Marion Tetegan
  • Nathalie Korboulewsky
  • Alain Bouthier
  • Anatja Samouëlian
  • Isabelle Cousin
Regular Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background and aims

Stony soils are widespread and often support plant production; nevertheless, their physical properties remain poorly understood, particularly regarding the role of rock fragments in plant water uptake. Understanding the hydric interactions between rock fragments and fine earth in stony soils remains central to water management in the context of climate change.

Methods

A soil water retention curve of stony soil was developed based on a water retention curve for both rock fragments and fine earth. Water transfer between fine earth, rock fragment and plant roots was monitored during experiments under controlled evaporation conditions.

Results

During desiccation, the water retention curves for fine earth and rock fragments exhibited water movement from the rock fragment to the fine earth. During our evaporation experiment, fine earth water content decreased as soon as desiccation started, whereas the rock fragments released water after several days. We demonstrated that rock fragments are a water reservoir for plants; plants can uptake water directly from pebbles or after it is transferred into surrounding fine earth. However, this transfer could not be measured due to the non-equilibrium state between the two phases. Furthermore, we exhibited how the water potential dynamics in fine earth containers cultivated with poplar was not influenced by the rock fragments content.

Conclusion

Water in rock fragments can be directly released to plants or released through fine earth, thereby reducing plant water stress during moderate drought periods. Therefore, the assumption that rock fragments constitute an inert phase inhibiting ecological soil functions must be completely reconsidered.

Keywords

Rock fragments Fine earth Desiccation Water retention curve Water exchange 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the INRA Research Unit “Amélioration, Génétique et Physiologie Forestières,” which provided us with the poplar cuttings and the greenhouse equipment. Hervé Gaillard, Pierre Courtemanche and Olivier Josière are gratefully acknowledged for their help during the field sampling and the laboratory measurements.

References

  1. Agreste (2011) L’utilisation du territoire en 2010 - Les paysages agricoles dominent toujours le territoire français. N° 260Google Scholar
  2. Bakker MR, George E, Turpault M-P, Zhang JL, Zeller B (2004) Impact of Douglas-fir and Scots pine seedlings on plagioclase weathering under acidic conditions. Plant Soil 266:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballif JL (1978) Porosité de la craie, appréciation de la taille et de la répartition des pores. Ann Agron 29:123–131Google Scholar
  4. Berger E (1976) Partitioning the parameters of stony soils, important in moisture determinations in to their constituents. Plant Soil 44:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besson A, Cousin I, Bourennane H, Nicoullaud B, Pasquier C, Richard G, Dorigny A, King D (2010) The spatial and temporal organization of soil water at the field scale as described by electrical resistivity measurements. Eur J Soil Sci 61(1):120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks RJ, Corey AT (1964) Hydraulic properties of porous media, hydrology papers 3. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, p 37Google Scholar
  7. Certini G, Campbell CD, Edwards AC (2004) Rock fragments in soil support a different microbial community from the fine earth. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1119–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coile TS (1953) Moisture content of small stones in soils. Soil Sci 75:203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cousin I, Nicoullaud B, Coutadeur C (2003) Influence of rock fragments on the water retention and water percolation in a calcareous soil. Catena 53(2):97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danalatos NG, Kosmas CS, Moustakas NC, Yassouglou N (1995) Rock fragments II. Their impact on soil physical properties and biomass production under Mediterranean conditions. Soil Use Manage 11:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durner W (1994) Hydraulic conductivity estimation for soils with heterogeneous pore structure. Water Resour Res 30:211–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fies JC, Louvigny NDE, Chanzy A (2002) The role of stones in soil water retention. Eur J Soil Sci 53(1):95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gijsman AJ, Floris J, Van Noordwijk M, Brouwer G (1991) An inflatable minirhizotron system for root observations with improved soil/tube contact. Plant Soil 134:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gras R (1994) Sols caillouteux et production végétale. INRA Editions, Paris, p 175Google Scholar
  15. Gras R, Monnier G (1963) Contribution de certains éléments grossiers à l’alimentation en eau des végétaux. Sci Sol 1:13–20Google Scholar
  16. Groenevelt PH, Straaten P, Rasiah V, Simpson J (1989) Modification in evaporation parameters by rock mulches. Soil Technol 2:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ingelmo F, Cuadrado S, Ibanez A, Hernandez J (1994) Hydric properties of some Spanish soils in relation to their rock fragment content. Implications for runoff and vegetation. Catena 23(1–2):73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IUSS Working Group WRB (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006, 2nd edn. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. Jury WA, Bellantuoni B (1976) Heat and water movement under surface rocks in a field soil: II. Moisture effects. Soil Sci Soc Am J 40:509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kemper WD, Nick AD, Corey AT (1994) Accumulation of water in soils under gravel and sand mulches. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klute A (1986) Methods of soil analysis, part 1, physical and mineralogical properties. In: agronomy (editor). Amer. Society, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  22. Koele N, Hildebrand EE (2008) The ecological significance of the coarse soil fraction for Picea abies (L.) Karst. Seedling nutrition. Plant Soil 312:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lopez B, Sabaté S, Gracia C (1995) An inflatable minirhizotron system for stony soils. Plant Soil 179:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma DH, Shao MG (2008) Simulating infiltration into stony soils with a dual-porosity model. Eur J Soil Sci 59(5):950–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Magier J, Ravina I (1984) Rock fragments and soil depth as factors in land evaluation of Terra Rossa. Soil Sci Soc Am J Special Publication 13:13–30Google Scholar
  26. Marron N, Delay D, Petit JM, Dreyer E, Kahlem G, Delmotte F, Brignolas F (2002) Physiological traits of two Populus x euramericana clones, Luisa Avanzo and Dorskamp, during a water stress and re-watering cycle. Tree Physiol 22(12):849–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Marron N, Dreyer E, Boudouresque E, Delay D, Petit JM, Delmotte F, Brignolas F (2003) Impact of successive drought and re-watering cycles on growth and specific leaf area of two Populus X canadensis (Moench) clones, ‘Dorskamp’ and ‘Luisa_Avanzo. Tree Physiol 23(18):1225–1235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Monclus R, Dreyer E, Villar M, Delmotte F, Delay D, Petit JM, Barbaroux C, Le Thiec D, Brechet C, Brignolas F (2006) Impact of drought on productivity and water use efficiency in 29 genotypes of Populus deltoides x Populus nigra. New Phytol 169(4):765–777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Monnier G, Stengel P, Fiès JC (1973) Une méthode de mesure de la densité apparente de petits agglomérats terreux. Application à l’analyse des systèmes de porosité du sol. Ann Agron 24(5):533–545Google Scholar
  30. Nicoullaud B, Couturier A, Beaudoin N, Mary B, Coutadeur C, King D (2004) Modélisation spatiale à l’échelle parcellaire des effets de la variabilité des sols et des pratiques culturales sur la pollution nitrique agricole. In: Monestiez P, Lardon S, Seguin B (eds) Organisation spatiale des activités agricoles et processus environnementaux. Science Update, INRA Editions, Coll, pp 143–161Google Scholar
  31. Poesen J, Lavee H (1994) Rock fragments in top soils: significance and processes. Catena 23:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Richards LA (1956) Sample retainers for measuring water retention by soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 20(3):301–303Google Scholar
  33. Samouëlian A, Cousin I, Dagès C, Frison A, Richard G (2011) Determining the effective hydraulic properties of a highly heterogeneous soil horizon. Vadose Zone J 10:450–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schülter S, Vanderborght J, Vogel HJ (2012) Hydraulic non-equilibrium during infiltration induced by structural connectivity. Adv Water Resour 44:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smaill SJ, Clinton PW, Allen RB, Davis MR (2014) New evidence indicates the coarse soil fraction is of greater relevance to plant nutrition than previously suggested. Plant Soil 374:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smulders MJM, Cottrell JE, Lefèvre F, van der Schoot J, Arens P, Vosman B, Tabbener HE, Grassi F, Fossati T, Castiglione S, Krystufek V, Fluch S, Burg K, Vornam B, Pohl A, Gebhardt K, Alba N, Agundez D, Maestro C, Notivol E, Volosyanchuk R, Pospiskova M, Bordacs S, Bovenschen J, van Dam BC, Koelewijn HP, Halfmaerten D, Ivens B, van Slycken J, Vanden Broeck A, Storme V, Boerjan W (2008) Structure of the genetic diversity in black poplar (Populus nigra L.) populations across European river systems: consequences for conservation and restoration. For Ecol Manage 255(5–6):1388–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tetegan M, Nicoullaud B, Baize D, Bouthier A, Cousin I (2011) The contribution of rock fragments to the available water content of stony soils: proposition of new pedotransfer functions. Geoderma 165:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tschaplinski TJ, Tuskan GA, Gebre DE, Todd DE (1998) Drought resistance of two hybrid Populus clones grown in a large-scale plantation. Tree Physiol 18:653–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ugolini FC, Corti G, Agnelli A, Certini G (1998) Under- and overestimation of soil properties in stony soils. 16th World Congress of Soil Science, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Genuchten MT, Leij FJ, Yates SR (1991) The RETC code for quantifying the hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils. EPA Report 600/2-91/065. US Salinity Laboratory USDA ARS, RiversideGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Schöll L, Kuyper TW, Smits MM, Landeweert R, Hoffland E, Breemen NV (2008) Rock-eating mycorrhizas: their role in plant nutrition and biogeochemical cycles. Plant Soil 303:35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vogel H-J, Samouëlian A, Ippisch O (2008) Multi-step and two –step experiments in heterogeneous porous media to evaluate the revelance of dynamic effects. Adv Water Resour 31:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Welsch RE (1977) Stepwise multiple comparison procedures. J Am Stat Assoc 72:566–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Tetegan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nathalie Korboulewsky
    • 5
    • 1
    • 6
  • Alain Bouthier
    • 2
  • Anatja Samouëlian
    • 7
    • 1
  • Isabelle Cousin
    • 1
  1. 1.INRA, UR 0272 Science du Sol, Centre de recherche d’OrléansOrléans Cedex 02France
  2. 2.Arvalis – Institut du Végétal, Domaine Expérimental du MagneraudSaint Pierre d’AmillyFrance
  3. 3.Université de Toulouse, INP, UPS, EcoLab (Laboratoire Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Environnement), ENSATCastanet TolosanFrance
  4. 4.CNRS, EcoLabCastanet TolosanFrance
  5. 5.Irstea, UR EFNO Ecosystèmes ForestiersNogent-sur-VernissonFrance
  6. 6.Aix-Marseille Université – Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d’Ecologie (UMR CNRS 7263 – IRD – Université d’Avignon et des pays de Vaucluse)MarseilleFrance
  7. 7.INRA, UMR 1221 LISAH (INRA-IRD-SupAgro)MontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations