Redefining the Soil available Water Indicator to assess the soil Physical Quality in the rice paddies

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Soil and Water Research Department, Khuzestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Ahvaz, Iran

2 Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Soil physical quality plays a major role in soil quality studies and it is considered necessary for sustainable economic production, conservation of the environment and prevention of soil degradation. To determine the soil physical quality indicators and their optimal range, the specific conditions of land use and type of cultivated plant should also be considered. Unlike other land uses in rice paddies, many soil physical, chemical and biological behavior and properties are altered by adding water to the soil and puddling. Hence, it is expected that its limitations will vary with other soils. Therefore, this study was conducted with the aim of reviewing the definition of soil available water index in assessing soil physical quality based on specific conditions of rice plant and land preparation operations.
Materials and Methods: 40 soil samples were selected from rice paddies of Guilan province, and soil physical and chemical properties were measured. In addition to Dexter's S index, the soil available water index for plant (PAW) was calculated in three different ways including 1) by assumption of filed capacity at soil suction of 100 cm as upper limit of soil water availability (PAW100), 2) by assumption of filed capacity at soil suction of 330 cm (PAW330), and 3) Redefining of PAW using soil saturation moisture and soil moisture at a suction of 2000 cm as the upper and lower limits of soil available water indicator for rice, respectively (PAWrice).
Results: The results showed that assuming the moisture content of the field capacity at the soil suctions of 100 and 330 cm, 65 and 55 percent of the soil samples had a good physical quality, respectively. While redefining of the PAW indicator of rice paddies (PAWrice) confirmed a good to great soil physical quality in 57.5% of the studied samples. In the studied samples, the use of PAW100 overestimated the amount of soil available water in all soil texture classes. While the use of the PAW330 concept has led to an overestimation of the soil available water value in medium soil textural classes (i.e. silty loam and silty clay loam). However, as the soil texture becomes clayey, the estimated soil available water using PAW330 was less than actual value. The variation of the average values of Dexter S and PAWrice indicators in different soil texture classes was observed by the same trend and as silty loam > silty clay > silty clay loam > clay loam > clay. It should be noted that despite the redefining of the soil available water indicator in rice paddies, the value of Dexter's S index in its optimal range for studied soils was more than 0.035.
Conclusion: Difference in the range of soil water availability in rice paddy fields and its effect on rice yields confirmed the need to redefine soil available water indicator paddy fields. In addition, despite the redefining the soil available water indicator, the results indicated that the Threshold value of 0.035 for S index is probably suitable to evaluate soil good physical quality based on the soil water availability for plant in rice paddies.

Keywords

References

1.Agricultural annual report. 2018. Agricultural and horticultural crops. Ministry of Jahade Agriculture Press. Deputy of Economic Planning Officer, Office of Statistics and Information Technology. 124p.
2.Armindo, R.A., and Wendroth, O. 2016. Physical soil structure evaluation based on hydraulic energy functions. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Jo. 80: 1167-1180.
3.Bouman, B.A.M., and Tuong, T.P. 2001. Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated rice. Agricultural Water Management.49: 11-30.
4.Cockroft, B., and Olsson, K.A. 1997. Case study of soil quality in south-eastern Australia: management of structure for roots in duplex soils. P 339-350. In: E.G. Gregorich and M.R. Carter, (eds.), Soil Quality for Crop Production and Ecosystem Health. Developments in Soil Science. Elsevier. New York, NY.
5.Dane, J.H., and Hopmans, J.W. 2002. Pressure cell. P 684-688. In: J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp, (eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4, Physical Methods: Soil Science Society of America Book Series. Soil Science Society of America. Madison, WI.
6.Davatgar, N., Neishabouri, M.R., Sepaskhah, A.R., and Soltani, A. 2009. Physiological and morphological responses of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to varying water stress management strategies. Inter. J. Plant Prod. (IJPP). 3: 4. 19-32.
7.Dexter, A.R. 2004. Soil physical quality. Part I: Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma. 120: 201-214.
8.Dexter, A.R., and Richard, G. 2009. Tillage of soils in relation to their bi-modal pore size distributions. Soil and Tillage Research. 103: 113-118.
9.Ebrahimi, M.S., Kalantri, Kh., Asadi, A., Movahed Mohammadi, H., and Saleh, I. 2012. Investigation of the change of production in farmers of on farm development program (case study in Gilan province). J. Agric. Sci. Sust. Prod. 22: 183-191.
10.Gee, G.W., and Or, D. 2002. Particle-size analysis. P 255-293. In: J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods: Soil Science Society of America Book Series, Madison.
11.Grossman, R.B., and Reinsch, T.G. 2002. Bulk density and linear extensibility. P 201-228. In: J.H. Dane and G.C. Clake (eds.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods: Soil Science Society of America Book Series (no. 5). Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
12.Hudson, B. 1994. Soil organic matter and available water capacity. J. Soil Water Cons. 49: 189-193.
13. Kirkham, M.B. 2005. Principles of soil and plant water relations, Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam. 500p.
14. Meskini-Vishkaee, F., and Davatgar, N. 2019. Evaluation the integral energy to estimate soil water availability in paddy soils of Guilan province. Iran. J. Soil Water Res. (IJSWR). 50: 5. 1053-1062. (In Persian)
15.Meskini-Vishkaee, F., and Mirkhani, R. 2019. Effect of field capacity moisture in determination and evaluation of the soil physical quality indices. Iran. J. Soil Water Res. (IJSWR). 50: 4. 836-845.(In Persian)
16.Moebius, B.N., van Es, H.M., Schindelbeck, R.R., Idowu, O.J., Clune, D.J., and Thies, J.E. 2007. Evaluation of laboratory-measured soil properties as indicator of soil physical quality. Soil Science. 172: 11. 895-912.
17.Moncada, M.P., Ball, B.C., Gabriels, D., Lobo, D., and Cornelis, W.M. 2015. Evaluation of soil physical quality index S for some tropical and temperate medium-textured soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 79: 9-19.
18.Rawls, W.J., Pachepsky, Y.A., Ritchie, J.C., Sobecki, T.M., and Bloodworth, H. 2003. Effect of soil organic on soil water retention. Geoderma. 116: 61-76.
19.Reynolds, W.D., Bowman, B.T., Drury, C.F., Tan, C.S., and Lu, X. 2002. Indicators of good soil physical quality: density and storage parameters. Geoderma. 110: 131-146.
20.Reynolds, W.D., Drury, C.F., Tan, C.S., Fox, C.A., and Yang, X.M. 2009. Use of indicators and pore volume function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality. Geoderma. 152: 252-263.
21.Rezaee, L., Moosavi, A.A., Davatgar, N., and Shabanpor Shahrestani, M. 2017. Comparison of different soil water retention curve models for evaluation of soil quality index (S) in paddy soils. Iran. J. Soil Res. 31: 509-524.(In Persian)
 22.Sadradini, A.A., and Salahshour Dalivand, F. 2012. The effect of salinity and irrigation regimes on yield and water productivity in cracked paddy rice field. Cereal Research. 2: 3. 193-208.(In Persian)
23.Saxton, K.E., and Rawls, W.J.2006. Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 70: 1569-1578.
24.Sharma, P.K. 1989. Effect of period moisture stress on water-use efficiency in wetland rice. Oryza. 26: 252-257.
25.Topp, G.C., Reynolds, W.D., Cook, F.J., Kirby, J.M., and Carter, M.R. 1997. Physical attributes of soil quality.
P 21-58. In: E.G. Gregorich and M.R. Carter (eds.), Soil Quality for Crop Production and Ecosystem Health. Developments in Soil Science. Elsevier.
26.Toung, T.P., Wopereis, M.S.C., Marques, J.A., and Kropff, M.J. 1994. Mechanisms and control of percolation losses in puddle rice fields. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 58: 1794-1803.
27.van Genuchten, M.T. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 44: 892-897.
28.Veihmeyer, F.J., and Hendrickson, A.H. 1927. The relation of soil moisture to cultivation and plant growth. Proceeding the 1st International Congress of Soil Science, 3: 498-513.
29.Warrick, A.W. 2002. Soil Physics Companion. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, USA. 400p.
30.Wesseling, J., and van Wijk, W.R. 1957. Soil physical conditions in relation to drain depth. P 461-504. In: J.N. Luthin (eds.), Drainage of agricultural lands: American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconson.
31.White, R.E. 2006. Principles and Practice of Soil Science. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. 363p.
32.Wopereis, M.S.C., Kropff, M.J., Maligaya, A.R., and Tuong, T.P. 1996. Drought-stress responses of two lowland rice cultivars to soil water status. Field Crop Research. 46: 21-39. 
Journal of Soil Management and Sustainable Production
Volume 9, Issue 4
March 2020
Pages 145-158

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics