Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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, R 2 = 0.83; and IWC = −0.0405 + 2.0465LLWR330, R 2 = 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 360:147–165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 57:437–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 62:1384–1393

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 48:863–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyoucos GJ (1962) Hydrometer method improved for making particles size analyses of soils. Agron J 56:464–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 89:13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Silva AP, Kay BD (1997) Estimating least limiting water range of soils from properties and management. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:877–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Silva AP, Kay BD (2004) Linking process capability analysis and least limiting water range for assessing soil physical quality. Soil Till Res 79:167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 61:451–456

    Google Scholar 

  • da Silva AP, Kay BD, Perfect E (1994) Characterization of the least limiting water range of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:1775–1781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 69:500–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dexter AR (2004a) Soil physical quality; Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma 120:201–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dexter AR (2004b) Soil physical quality; Part II. Friability, tillage, tilth and hard-setting. Geoderma 120:215–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dexter AR (2004c) Soil physical quality; Part III: Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and general conclusions about S-theory. Geoderma 120:227–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 429–442

  • Dexter AR, Czyż EA, Gaţe OP (2007) A method for prediction of soil penetration resistance. Soil Till Res 93:412–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 143:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 258–264

  • Groenevelt PH, Grant CD, Murray RS (2004) On water availability in saline soils. Aust J Soil Res 42:833–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenevelt PH, Grant CD, Semetsa S (2001) A new procedure to determine soil water availability. Aust J Soil Res 39:577–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 75

  • Jones CA (1983) Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities for root growth. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:1208–1211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 85:166–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jury WA, Gardner WR, Gardner WH (1991) Soil physics, 5th edn. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York

  • Kirkham MB (2005) Principles of soil and plant water relations. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 500

  • Klute A (ed) (1986) Methods of soil analysis: part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronomy monograph vol 9, 2nd edn. ASA, WI

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 78:151–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leao TP, da Silva AP (2004) A simplified Excel algorithm for estimating the least limiting water range of soils. Sci Agric 61:649–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 88:279–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Leao TP, da Silva AP, Perfect E, Tormena CA (2005) An algorithm for calculating the least limiting water range of soils. Agron J 97:1210–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letey J (1985) Relationship between soil physical properties and crop production. Adv Soil Sci 1:277–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclean AH, Yager TV (1972) Available water in Zambian soils in relation to pressure plate measurements and particle size analysis. Soil Sci 133:23–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Meriaux S (1982) Soil and water. In: Bonneau M, Souchier B (eds) Constituents and properties of soils. Academic Press, London, pp 302–354

  • Minasny B, McBratney AB (2003) Integral energy as a measure of soil–water availability. Plant Soil 249:253–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 105:242–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mualem Y (1976) A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media. Water Resour Res 12:513–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Munns R (2002) Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:239–250

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nemenyi M, Mesterhazi PA, Milics G (2006) An application of tillage force mapping as a cropping management tools. Biosys Eng 94(3):351–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olness A, Archer D (2005) Effect of organic carbon on available water in soil. Soil Sci 170:90–101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 325–340

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Canterbury

  • 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 102:242–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds WD, Bowman BT, Drury CF, Tan CS, Lu X (2002) Indicators of good soil physical quality: density and storage parameters. Geoderma 110:131–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 152:252–263

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 96:316–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds WD, Drury CF, Yang XM, Tan CS (2008) Optimal soil physical quality inferred through structural regression and parameter interactions. Geoderma 146:466–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor HM, Roberson GM, Parker JJ (1966) Soil strength–root penetration relations for medium- to coarse-textured soil materials. Soil Sci 102:18–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Genuchten MTh (1980) A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 93

  • Veihmeyer FJ, Hendrickson AH (1927) The relation of soil moisture to cultivation and plant growth. Proc 1st Intern Congr Soil Sci 3:498–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Veihmeyer FJ, Hendrickson AH (1931) The moisture equivalent as a measure of the field capacity of soils. Soil Sci 32:181–193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Veihmeyer FJ, Hendrickson AH (1949) Methods of measuring field capacity and wilting percentages of soils. Soil Sci 68:75–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 98:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster R, Beckett PHT (1972) Matric suctions to which soils in South Central England drain. J Agric Sci Camb 78:379–387

    Google Scholar 

  • White RE (1997) Principles and practice of soil science. The soil as a natural resource, 3rd edn. Blackwell Science, Carlton, Vic

  • 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 35:1576–1583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Bu-Ali Sina University for the financial support of the study. Special appreciation is extended to Prof. J. Letey of University of California at Riverside, USA, and Prof. P.H. Groenevelt of University of Guelph, Canada for their valuable comments and thoughtful reviewing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, 65174, Iran

    Hossein Asgarzadeh, Ali Akbar Mahboubi & Akram Nosrati

  2. Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran

    Mohammad Reza Mosaddeghi

  3. Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation (IUNG), ul. Czartoryskich 8, 24-100, Pulawy, Poland

    Anthony Roger Dexter

Authors
  1. Hossein Asgarzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Reza Mosaddeghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Akbar Mahboubi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Akram Nosrati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anthony Roger Dexter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Reza Mosaddeghi.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Rafael S. Oliveira.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R., Mahboubi, A.A. et al. Soil water availability for plants as quantified by conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity. Plant Soil 335, 229–244 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0410-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0410-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation