Advertisement

Environmental Processes

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 617–628 | Cite as

Estimated Water Savings in an Agricultural Field Amended With Natural Zeolites

  • Nicolò Colombani
  • Dario Di Giuseppe
  • Barbara Faccini
  • Giacomo Ferretti
  • Micòl MastrociccoEmail author
  • Massimo Coltorti
Original Article

Abstract

Agricultural practices can jeopardize soil and water quality, thus mitigation measures to reduce nutrient loss and to protect water resources have to be implemented in order to ensure a sound environmental quality and, at the same time, a high crop yield. Natural zeolites have been tested as soil conditioner to diminish nutrient leaching and increase irrigation efficiency. In this study, an experimental site of 6 ha was monitored for two years to assess whether amending the soil with natural zeolite may induce a considerable impact on the water balance. Three control parcels were cultivated and irrigated according to the traditional way; two parcels were amended with coarse-grained natural zeolite at different zeolite/soil ratio (5 and 15 kg/m2) and two parcels were amended with fine-grained zeolite (7 and 10 kg/m2). Soil electrical conductivity, temperature and volumetric water content were continuously monitored via TDR probes at different depths. Climatic variables for water balance calculation were obtained by a meteorological station installed on-site. Continuous monitoring highlighted an increase of soil water availability in the amended parcels with respect to the control ones. The parcel amended with 10 kg/m2 of fine-grained natural zeolite showed an average water content always higher than the control ones, in the upper soil horizon. In addition, after intense rainfall, this parcel showed an increased field capacity and a reduced percolation towards the deeper soil horizon. Finally, the residual water content was improved by 1.2 ± 0.4 % throughout the summer droughts.

Keywords

Field experiment Natural zeolite Soil amendment Volumetric water content 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Two anonymous reviewers and the Guest Editor Prof. Isik Kabdasli are acknowledged for their constructive criticisms, which helped to substantially improve this manuscript. The authors gratefully thank Dr. Umberto Tessari and Francesco Droghetti from the Physics and Earth Sciences Department of the University of Ferrara for the grain size analysis and soil collection. This work has been supported by EC LIFE+ funding to ZeoLIFE project (LIFE+10 ENV/IT/000321). An initial version of this paper has been presented at the 9th World Congress of the European Water Resources Association (EWRA) “Water Resources Management in a Changing World: Challenges and Opportunities”, Istanbul, Turkey, June 10–13, 2015.

References

  1. Ahmad HMN, Sinclair A, Jamieson R, Madani A, Hebb D, Havard P, Yiridoe EK (2011) Modeling sediment and N export from a rural watershed in Eastern Canada using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool. J Environ Qual 40(4):1182–1194. doi: 10.2134/jeq2010.0530
  2. Aksakal EL, Angin I, Oztas T (2012) Effects of diatomite on soil physical properties. Catena 88(1):1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2011.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements—FAO Irrigation and drainage paper, 56, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  4. Aschonitis VG, Mastrocicco M, Colombani N, Salemi E, Kazakis N, Voudouris K, Castaldelli G (2012) Assessment of the intrinsic vulnerability of agricultural land to water and nitrogen losses via deterministic approach and regression analysis. Water Air Soil Pollut 223(4):1605–1614. doi: 10.1007/s11270-011-0968-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aschonitis VG, Demertzi K, Papamichail D, Colombani N, Mastrocicco M (2015) Revisiting the Priestley-Taylor method for the assessment of reference crop evapotranspiration in Italy. Ital J Agrometeorol 20(2):5–18Google Scholar
  6. Benini L, Antonellini M, Laghi M, Mollema PN (2016) Assessment of water resources availability and groundwater salinization in future climate and land use change scenarios: a case study from a coastal drainage basin in Italy. Water Resour Manag 30:731–745. doi: 10.1007/s11269-015-1187-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bigelow CA, Bowman DC, Cassel DK (2004) Physical properties of three sand size classes amended with inorganic materials or sphagnum peat moss for putting green root-zones. Crop Sci 44(3):900–907. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2004.9000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckley C, Carney P (2013) The potential to reduce the risk of diffuse pollution from agriculture while improving economic performance at farm level. Environ Sci Pol 25:118–126. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Colombani N, Giambastiani BMS, Mastrocicco M (2014a) Predicting salinization trends in a lowland coastal aquifer: Comacchio (Italy). Water Resour Manag 29(2):603–618. doi: 10.1007/s11269-014-0795-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colombani N, Mastrocicco M, Di Giuseppe D, Faccini B, Coltorti M (2014b) Variation of the hydraulic properties and solute transport mechanisms in a silty-clay soil amended with natural zeolites. Catena 123:195–204. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2014.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colombani N, Mastrocicco M, Di Giuseppe D, Faccini B, Coltorti M (2015) Batch and column experiments on nutrient leaching in soils amended with Italian natural zeolitites. Catena 127:64–71. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2014.12.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elrick DE, Reynolds WD (1992) Methods of analyzing constant-head well permeameter data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:320–323. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600010052x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fabian L (2012) Extreme cities and isotropic territories: scenarios and projects arising from the environmental emergency of the central Veneto città diffusa. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 3(1):11–22. doi: 10.1007/s13753-012-0003-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014) World Reference Base for Soil Resources - international soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps, by IUSS–WRB–FAO. World Soil Resources Report No. 106. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. García-Ruiz JM, López-Moreno JI, Vicente-Serrano SM, Lasanta T, Beguería S (2011) Mediterranean water resources in a global change scenario. Earth Sci Rev 105:121–139. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gholamhoseini M, Ghalavand A, Khodaei-Joghan A, Dolatabadian A, Zakikhani H, Farmanbar E (2013) Zeolite-amended cattle manure effects on sunflower yield, seed quality, water use efficiency and nutrient leaching. Soil Tillage Res 126:193–202. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2012.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gualtieri AF, Passaglia E (2006) Rietveld structure refinement of NH4-exchanged natural chabazite. Eur J Mineral 18(3):351–359. doi: 10.1127/0935-1221/2006/0018-0351
  19. Hong CS, Shackelford CD, Malusis MA (2011) Consolidation and hydraulic conductivity of zeolite-amended soil-bentonite backfills. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(1):15–25. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang ZT, Petrovic AM (1995) Physical properties of sand as affected by clinoptilolite zeolite particle size and quantity. J Turfgrass Manage 1(1):1–15. doi: 10.1300/J099v01n01_01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hudak PF (2010) Principles of Hydrogeology, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  22. Kundzewicz ZW, Mata LJ, Arnell NW, Döll P, Jimenez B, Miller K, Oki T, Sen Z, Shiklomanov I (2008) The implications of projected climate change for freshwater resources and their management. Hydrol Sci J 53:3–10. doi: 10.1623/hysj.53.1.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee J, Horton R, Jaynes DB (2002) The feasibility of shallow time domain reflectometry probes to describe solute transport through undisturbed soil columns. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:53–57. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2002.5300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenka S, Singh AK, Lenka NK (2009) Water and nitrogen interaction on soil profile water extraction and ET in maize–wheat cropping system. Agric Water Manag 96:195–207. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2008.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malferrari D, Laurora A, Brigatti MF, Coltorti M, Di Giuseppe D, Faccini B, Passaglia E, Vezzalini MG (2013) Open-field experimentation of an innovative and integrated zeolitite cycle: project definition and material characterization. Rend Lincei 24:141–150. doi: 10.1007/s12210-013-0235-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mastrocicco M, Colombani N, Di Giuseppe D, Faccini B, Coltorti M (2013) Contribution of the subsurface drainage system in changing the nitrogen speciation of an agricultural soil located in a complex marsh environment (Ferrara, Italy). Agric Water Manag 119:144–153. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.12.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mastrocicco M, Colombani N, Gargini A (2014) Modelling present and future Po river interactions with the alluvial aquifers (low Po river plain, Italy). J Water Clim Change 5(3):457–471. doi: 10.2166/wcc.2014.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCoy EL (1992) Quantitative physical assessment of organic materials used in sports turf rootzone mixes. Agron J 84:375–381. doi: 10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400030005x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mortl A, Muñoz-Carpena R, Kaplan D, Li Y (2011) Calibration of a combined dielectric probe for soil moisture and porewater salinity measurement in organic and mineral coastal wetland soils. Geoderma 161:50–62. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olesen JE, Trnka M, Kersebaum KC, Skjelvåg AO, Seguin B, Peltonen-Sainio P, Rossi F, Kozyra J, Micale F (2011) Impacts and adaptation of European crop production systems to climate change. Eur J Agron 34(2):96–112. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2010.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rajwade YA, Swain DK, Tiwari KN, Mohanty UC, Goswami P (2015) Evaluation of field level adaptation measures under the climate change scenarios in rice based cropping system in India. Environ Process 2(4):669–687. doi: 10.1007/s40710-015-0115-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sheta AS, Falatah AM, Al-Sewailem MS, Khaled EM, Sallam ASH (2003) Sorption characteristics of zinc and iron by natural zeolite and bentonite. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 61(1–3):127–136. doi: 10.1016/S1387-1811(03)00360-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Starr G, Levison J (2014) Identification of crop groundwater and surface water consumption using blue and green virtual water contents at a subwatershed scale. Environ Process 1(4):497–515. doi: 10.1007/s40710-014-0040-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Teatini P, Ferronato M, Gambolati G, Bertoni W, Gonella M (2005) A century of land subsidence in Ravenna, Italy. Environ Geol 47(6):831–846. doi: 10.1007/s00254-004-1215-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tiessen H, Moir JO (1993) Total and organic carbon. In: Carte ME (ed) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Lewis Publishers, p 187–211Google Scholar
  36. Truman CC, Nuti RC, Truman LR, Dean JD (2010) Feasibility of using FGD gypsum to conserve water and reduce erosion from an agricultural soil in Georgia. Catena 81(3):234–239. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2010.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (1984) National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/. Accessed 23 Sept 2013
  38. U.S. Geological Survey (2016) Mineral commodity summaries: zeolites (natural). Available online at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zeolites/index.html. Accessed 06 March 2016
  39. Vogeler I, Clothier BE, Green SR, Scotter DR, Tillman RW (1996) Characterizing water and solute movement by TDR and disk permeametry. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:5–12. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000010004x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weiß M (2011) Future water availability in selected European catchments: a probabilistic assessment of seasonal flows under the IPCC A1B emission scenario using response surfaces. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2163–2171. doi: 10.5194/nhess-11-2163-2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zalidis G, Stamatiadis S, Takavakoglou V, Eskridge K, Misopolinos N (2002) Impacts of agricultural practices on soil and water quality in the Mediterranean region and proposed assessment methodology. Agric Ecosyst Environ 88(2):137–146. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00249-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang F, Cui Z, Fan M, Zhang W, Chen X, Jiang R (2011) Integrated soil–crop system management: reducing environmental risk while increasing crop productivity and improving nutrient use efficiency in China. J Environ Qual 40(4):1051–1057. doi: 10.2134/jeq2010.0292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth Sciences“Sapienza” University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Physics and Earth SciencesUniversity of FerraraFerraraItaly
  3. 3.Department of Environmental, Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences and TechnologiesSecond University of NaplesCasertaItaly

Personalised recommendations