تأثیر اصلاح کننده آلی و شیمیایی بر پایداری ساختمان خاک، دامنه رطوبتی با حداقل محدودیت و گنجایش آب انتگرالی گیاه گندم در خاک‌های شور

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه علوم خاک، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد. مشهد، ایران

3 گروه علوم خاک، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان

4 گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ارومیه مشهد. ارومیه، ایران

چکیده

شوری خاک بر بیشتر ویژگی­های فیزیکی، شیمیایی و بیولوژیکی خاک تأثیر منفی دارد. شوری همچنین بر روابط خاک و گیاه تأثیرگذار بوده و با کاهش دادن مقدار جذب آب رشد گیاه را محدود می­کند. از راهکارهای مورد استفاده برای کاهش اثرات شوری و اصلاح ویژگی­های فیزیکی خاک، استفاده از اصلاح کننده‌های آلی و شیمیایی می‌باشد. در این پژوهش اثر دو نوع اصلاح کننده آلی و شیمیایی بر ویژگی­های فیزیکی 5 نمونه خاک شور با درجه شوری و سدیمی متفاوت از عمق صفر تا 30 سانتی‌متری اطراف دریاچه ارومیه بررسی شد. تیمارهای مورد استفاده شامل جلبک، سالفید و جلبک+سالفید بودند. شاخص­های میانگین وزنی قطر خاکدانه‌ها (MWD) در دو حالت تر و خشک و پایداری خاکدانه (AS) به عنوان شاخص‌های پایداری ساختمان خاک و دامنه رطوبت با حداقل محدودیت محدودیت (LLWR) و گنجایش آب انتگرالی (IWC) به عنوان شاخص‌های هیدرولیکی خاک مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. نتایج نشان داد در 5 نوع خاک مورد مطالعه استفاده از ترکیبات اصلاح کننده باعث افزایش شاخص‌های پایداری ساختمان خاک شد که این افزایش در خاک 1، 2 و 4 بیشترین مقدار بود. همچنین سالفید باعث بیشترین افزایش در مقدار پایداری خاکدانه (9/74 درصد افزایش)، دامنه رطوبت بدون محدودیت در مکش 33 کیلوپاسکال (LLWR33، 5/14 درصد افزایش) و گنجایش آب انتگرالی (2/26 درصد افزایش) نسبت به شاهد شد. بیشترین مقدار میانگین وزنی قطر خاکدانه در دو حالت تر و خشک نیز در تیمار سالفید+جلبک به ترتیب با 4/52 و 4/40 درصد افزایش نسبت به شاهد به دست آمد. تأثیر خصوصیات اولیه خاک بر میزان ویژگی‌های اندازه‌گیری شده معنی‌دار بود و کاربرد اصلاح کننده‌ها باعث بهبود این ویژگی‌ها در خاک‌های مورد مطالعه شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of Organic and Chemical Conditioners on Aggregate Stability, Least Limiting Water Range and Integral Water Capacity under Wheat Cultivation in Saline Soils

نویسندگان [English]

  • A. Nosrati Miandoab 1
  • H. Emami 2
  • A. Astaraei 2
  • M.R. Mosadeghi 3
  • H. Asgarzadeh 4
1 Soil Science Dept., Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
2 Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
3 Soil Science Dept., Industrial university of Isfahan
4 Soil Science Dept., Urmia University
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Soil salinity has a negative effect on physical, chemical and biological properties of soil. Salinity also affects the relationships between soil and plants, which in turn has a significant effect on plant growth. One of the solutions used to reduce the effects of salinity and improve the physical properties of the soil is application of organic and chemical conditioners. Organic matter as well as calcium improve the structure and physical condition of the soil. Conditioners in saline soils include soluble calcium salts such as gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O), calcium chloride (CaCl2.2H2O) and phosphogypsum (phosphorous gypsum), and acids such as sulfuric acid, sulfur, pyrite, Aluminum sulfate and sulfur lime (calcium polysulfide). Strategies aimed at evaluating and ameliorating the structural quality of soils should be developed to ensure the sustainable use of lands. The least limiting water range (LLWR) attempts to incorporate crop-limiting values of soil strength, aeration, and water supply to plant roots into one effective parameter (on the basis of soil water content). The LLWR can be a useful indicator of soil quality and soil physical constraints on crop production. Therefore, the objective of this research was to study the effects of organic and inorganic conditioners on some structural and hydraulic indices of saline sodic soils.
Material and Methods
In this study, the effect of two types of organic and chemical conditioners and the simultaneous application of them on modifying the physical properties of 5 saline soils around the lake of Urmia were investigated. Treatments included algae, salfit and algae+salfit. The soil samples were transferred to culture boxes (40 × 40 × 40) according to the bulk density of the sampling site. The soil samples were wetted and dried several times. Conditioners treatments including application of calcium and organic compounds. After reaching the field capacity, wheat seeds were sown and irrigated with water (electrical conductivity 0.28 dS/m and pH= 7.78). It should be noted that irrigation was done at intervals of 8 days. Two months after the beginning the experiment, irrigation was stopped and soil moisture was allowed to reach a permanent wilting point. At this stage, undisturbed soil samples were prepared from the treated soil of each box and the mean weight‐diameter of dry (MWDdry) and wet (MWDwet) aggregates were measured. Then the values of least limiting water range in two suctions of 330 and 100 cm and water integral capacity of samples were measured.
Results and Discussion
According to the initial analysis, all soils used were saline and the amount of calcium carbonate was high in two soils (number 3 and 5). Soil organic carbon content was also low. The results of salfit analysis also showed that the dissolved calcium and sulfur content were 8 and 3.9%, respectively. The results showed that soil 1 had the highest amount of MWDwet and soil 5 had the lowest amount of MWDwet. The highest and lowest aggregate stability values were obtained in soils 3 and 5, respectively, where soil 5 was very saline soil. The studied soils differed in terms of soil water relations. The highest amount of LLWR330 was found in soil 5, while the lowest amount of LLWR100 and IWC parameters was also obtained in same soil. The results of this study showed that salfit treatment caused the highest increase in aggregate stability (74.9%) LLWR330 (14.5%) and integral water capacity (26.2%) compared to the control and the highest mean weight‐diameter of aggregates in both wet and dry conditions was obtained in salfit-algae treatment (52.4% and 40.4% increase, respectively). The results of correlation analysis among the measured parameters showed that the highest correlation was found between aggregate stability and MWDwet. Among the measured parameters, aggregate stability had the highest correlation with other parameters and the correlation of this parameter with LLWR330, LLWR100, IWC and MWDwet were 0.36, 55, 75 and 88 %, respectively. Soil water integral capacity also had a significant correlation (p < 0.01) with LLWR330 (0.84) and MWDwet (0.7).
Conclusion
The effect of initial soil properties on studied parameters was significant and the use of conditioners improved studied parameters, and use of conditioners increased indices structural and hydraulic of saline soils. In general, the results of this study showed the positive effect of conditioners on physical properties of the studied soils, in which salfit and salfit-algae have a better effect on studied parameter, and they could be useful to improve soil physical condition. It seems that the application of different rates of conditioners as well as their interaction with each other should be considered according to the basic properties of the soil.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • algae
  • Dry and wet sieve
  • Mean weight diameter of aggregates
  • Salfit
  1. Al-Maliki S., and Al-Masoudi M. 2018. Interactions between Mycorrhizal fungi, tea wastes, and algal biomass affecting the microbial community, soil structure, and alleviating of salinity stress in corn yield (Zea mays). Plants 7(3):63. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants7030063.
  2. Asgarzadeh , Mosaddeghi M.R., Mahboubi A.A., Nosrati A., and Dexter A.R. 2010. Soil water availability for plants as quantified by conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity. Plant Soil 335: 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0410-6.
  3. Aye N.S. Sale P.W., and Tang C. 2016. The impact of long-term liming on soil organic carbon and aggregate stability in low-input acid soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 52(5): 697-709. https://doi.org/1007/s00374-016-1111-y.
  4. Azami Sardou R., and Mahmood Abadi M. 2016. Relationship between mean weight of aggregate diameter with some physical and chemical properties of soil in different cultivation systems. Fourth National Conference on the Application of New Technologies in Engineering Sciences. (In Persian)
  5. Barik K.M., Canbolat Y., Yanık R., and Rafiq K. 2011. Compressive behavior of soil as affected by aggregate size with Different textures in turkey. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 21(2): 186-192.
  6. Bayat H., Ebrahimi I., Rastgo M., Zare abyaneh H., and Davatghar N. 2013. Fitting Different Soil Water Characteristic Curve Models on the Experimental Data of Various Textural Classes of Guilan Province Soils. Water and Soil Science 23(3): 151-167.
  7. Briedis C., de Moraes Sá J.C., Caires E.F., de Fátima Navarro J., Inagaki T.M., Boer A., and Dos SantosJ B. 2012. Soil organic matter pools and carbon-protection mechanisms in aggregate classes influenced by surface liming in a no-till system. Geoderma, 170: 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.10.011.
  8. Chan K.Y., Conyers M.K., Li G.D., Helyar K.R., Poile G., Oates A., and Barchia I.M. 2011. Soil carbon dynamics under different cropping and pasture management in temperate Australia: Results of three long-term experiments. Soil Research 49(4): 320-328. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR10185.
  9. Chaplot V., and Cooper M. 2015. Soil aggregate stability to predict organic carbon outputs from soils. Geoderma 243: 205-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.12.013.
  10. Emadodin I., Reiss S., and Bork H.R. 2009. A study of the relationship between land management and soil aggregate stability (case study near Albersdorf, Northern-Germany). Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences 4(4): 48-53.
  11. Falchini L., Sparvoli E., and Tomasell L. 1996. Effect of Nostoc (Cyanobacteria) inoculation on the structure and stability of clay soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils 23: 346–352. DOI:10.1007/BF00335965.
  12. Fattet M., Fu Y., Ghestem M., Ma W., Foulonneau M., Nespoulous J., Bissonnais Y.L., and Stokes A. 2011. Effects of vegetation type on soil resistance to erosion: Relationship betweenaggregate stability and shear strength. Catena 87: 60-69. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02649976.
  13. Gee G.W., and Bauder J.W. 1986. Particle size analysis. In: A. Klute (Ed), Agronomy Handbook no 9. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. Madison, WI. pp. 363–
  14. Ghafoor A., Murtaza G., Ahmad B., and Boers T.H.M. 2008. Evaluation of amelioration treatments and economic aspects of using saline-sodic water for rice and wheat production on salt-affected soils under arid land conditions. Journal of soil and Irrigation Drainage 57: 424-434. DOI: 10.1002/ird.377.
  15. Gliñski J., Gliñski J., Horabik J., and Lipiec J. 2011. Agrophysical objects (soils, plants, agricultural products, and food). Encyclopedia of Agrophysics (Eds J. Gliñski, J. Horabik, J. Lipiec), Springer Press, Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York. DOI: 10.2478/ssa-2013-0012.
  16. Groenevelt P.H., Grant C.D., and Semetsa S. 2001. A new procedure to determine soil water availability. Soil Research 39(3): 577-598. DOI: 10.1071/SR99084.
  17. Irshad M., Honna T., Yamamoto S., Eneji A.E., and Yamasaki N. 2005. Nitrogen mineralization under saline conditions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 36(11-12): 1681-1689. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-200059116.
  18. Jones C.A. 1983. Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities for root growth. Soil Science Society of America Journal 47: 1208– https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1983.03615995004700060029x.
  19. Kemper W.D., and Rosenau R.C. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd edition. ASA Madison, WI, pp. 425-442.
  20. Lado M., Paz A., and Ben-Hur M. 2004. Organic matter and aggregate size interaction, seal formation, and soil loss. Soil Science Society America Journal 68: 935-942. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.9350.
  21. Loeppert R.H., and Suarez D.L. 1996. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Sparks D.L. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. Chemical methods. SSSA Book Series No. 5. Soil Science Society of America Journal and ASA, Madison, WI. p. 437-474.
  22. Liu A., Ma B.L., and Bomke A.A. 2005. Effects of cover crops on soil aggregate stability, total organic carbon, and polysaccharides. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69(6): 2041-2048.https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0032.
  23. Malam Issa O., Le Bissonnais Y., Défarge C., and Trichet J. 2001. Role of a cyanobacterial cover on structural stability of sandy soils in the Sahelian part of western Niger. Geoderma 101: 15–30. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7061(00)00093-8.
  24. Mbagwu J. 2003. Aggregate stability and soil degradation in the Tropics. Geoderma, pp. 3-21.
  25. Mohammadi M.H., and Khataar M. 2018. A simple numerical model to estimate water availability in saline soils. Soil Research 56(3): 264-274. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR17081.
  26. Muhammad Siddique S., Anwar H., and Abdul R. 2002. Effect of salt on bulk density, particle density and porosity of different soil series, Asia Journal of Plant Sciences 5 (1): 5-6. DOI: 10.3923/ajps.2002.5.6.
  27. Murtaza G., Ghafoor A., Owens G., Qadir M., and Kahlon U.Z. 2009. Environmental and economic benefits of saline- sodic soil reclamation using low quality water and soil amendments in conjunction with a rice-wheat cropping system. Journal of Agronomy Crop Science 195: 124–136. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00350.x.
  28. Neyshabouri M.R., Kazemi Z., Oustan S., and Moghaddam M. 2014. PTFs for predicting LLWR from various soil attributes including cementing agents. Geoderma, 226: 179-187. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.02.008.
  29. Norambuena M., Neaman A., Schiappacasse M.C., and Salgado E. 2014: Effect of liquid humus and calcium sulphate on soil aggregation. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 14: 701–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162014005000056.
  30. Pearson K.E. 2004. The basic effects of salinity and sodicity effects on soil physical properties. http://waterqualityMontana.edu/docs/methane/basics_highligh t.shtml.
  31. Peng X., and Bruns M.A. 2019. Development of a nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterial consortium for surface stabilization of agricultural soils. Journal of Applied Phycology, 31: 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-018-1597-9.
  32. Rowley M.C., Grand S., and Verrecchia E.P. 2018: Calcium-mediated stabilisation of soil organic carbon. Biogeochemistry 137: 27–49. DOI:10.1007/s10533-017-0410-1.
  33. Schumann A.W., and Sumner M.E. 2000. Chemical evaluation of nutrient supply from fly ash-biosolids mixtures. Soil Science Society of America Journal Iss 164: 419-426. DOI : 10.2136/sssaj2000.641419x.
  34. Sadiq M., Hassan G., Mehdi S.M., Hussain N., and Jamil M. 2007. Ameliorationof saline sodic soil with tillage implements and sulphuric acid application. Pedosphere 17:182-190. DOI:10.1016/S1002-0160(07)60024-1.
  35. da Silva A.P., Kay B.D., and Perfect E. 1994.Characterization of the least limiting water range of soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 58: 1775–1781. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800060028x.
  36. da Silva A.P., and Kay B.D. 1997. Estimating least limiting water range of soils from properties and management. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61: 877–883. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100030023x.
  37. Six J., Paustian K., Elliott E.T., and Combrink C. 2000. Soil structure and organic matter I. Distribution of aggregate‐size classes and aggregate‐associated carbon. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64(2): 681-689. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2000.642681x.
  38. Six J., Bossuyt H., Degryze S., and Denef K. 2004: A history of research on the link between (micro) aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Research 79: 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.03.008.
  39. Tobiašová E. 2011. The effect of organic matter on the structure of soils of different land uses. Soil and Tillage Research 114(2): 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.05.003.
  40. Thomas G.W. 1996. Soil pH and soil acidity. Methods of soil analysis. Part 3(875): 475-490. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c16.
  41. Walkley A., and Black I.A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37(1): 29-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003.
  42. Wang Y.Q., Zhang X.C., Zhang J.L., and Li S.J. 2009. Spatial variability of soil organic carbon in a watershed on the Loess Plateau. Pedosphere, 19: 486–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(09)60141-7.
  43. Worku , Minaleshewa M., and Kidan H.G. 2016. Impact of Gypsum and Sulfuric Acid Application on Cotton Yield under Saline Sodic Soil Condition in Melka Sadi Irrigated Farm. Academia Journal Agriculture Research 4(2): 091-095.38- DOI: 10.15413/ajar.2015.0190.
  44. Yoshikawa S., Kuroda Y., Ueno H., Kajiura M., and Ae N. 2018. Effect of phenolic acids on the formation and stabilization of soil aggregates. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 64(3): 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2018.1431011.

 

CAPTCHA Image
دوره 36، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 81
فروردین و اردیبهشت 1401
صفحه 113-126
  • تاریخ دریافت: 02 بهمن 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 18 بهمن 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 23 اسفند 1400
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 28 اسفند 1400