Critical evaluation of functional aspects of evaporation barriers through environmental and economics lens for evaporation suppression - A review on milestones from improved technologies

Abdallah, Ahmad; Parihar, C.M.; Patra, Sridhar; Nayak, H.S.; Saharawat, Yashpal; Singh, Upendra; Parihar, M. D.; Kakraliya, Suresh K.; Nassar, I. N.; Ugolini, Francesca; Zohir, Wafaa Fathi; Shalaby, Maram M.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147800

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 139 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Matching food production with the rapid population growth using sustainable and environmentally friendly approaches represents a big challenge, particularly under the changing climate [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Water scarcity is a major concern for the next decades [7][8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation Agriculture Effects on Soil Water Holding Capacity and Water-Saving Varied with Management Practices and Agroecological Conditions: A Review

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving soil water holding capacity (WHC) through conservation agriculture (CA)-practices, i.e., minimum mechanical soil disturbance, crop diversification, and soil mulch cover/crop residue retention, could buffer soil resilience against climate change. CA-practices could increase soil organic carbon (SOC) and alter pore size distribution (PSD); thus, they could improve soil WHC. This paper aims to review to what extent CA-practices can influence soil WHC and water-availability through SOC build-up and the change of the PSD. In general, the sequestered SOC due to the adoption of CA does not translate into a significant increase in soil WHC, because the increase in SOC is limited to the top 5–10 cm, which limits the capacity of SOC to increase the WHC of the whole soil profile. The effect of CA-practices on PSD had a slight effect on soil WHC, because long-term adoption of CA-practices increases macro- and bio-porosity at the expense of the water-holding pores. However, a positive effect of CA-practices on water-saving and availability has been widely reported. Researchers attributed this positive effect to the increase in water infiltration and reduction in evaporation from the soil surface (due to mulching crop residue). In conclusion, the benefits of CA in the SOC and soil WHC requires considering the whole soil profile, not only the top soil layer. The positive effect of CA on water-saving is attributed to increasing water infiltration and reducing evaporation from the soil surface. CA-practices’ effects are more evident in arid and semi-arid regions; therefore, arable-lands in Sub-Sahara Africa, Australia, and South-Asia are expected to benefit more. This review enhances our understanding of the role of SOC and its quantitative effect in increasing water availability and soil resilience to climate change.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation Agriculture Effects on Soil Water Holding Capacity and Water-Saving Varied with Management Practices and Agroecological Conditions: A Review

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The milled plant material was distributed in 12 litterbags (mesh size 35 μm), which was then placed on top of 600 g of soil A (dry weight equivalent) at 80% of the water holding capacity (WHC), itself in 4 polyethylene containers. The containers were covered with Para lm to minimize evaporation without affecting other gas exchanges (Abdallah et al 2021) (and thus prevent CO 2 accumulation) and placed in incubation chambers at 25°C for 3 months. The location of the containers in the incubation chambers was randomized weekly.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil Restoration Practices Effects on Priming Effect Intensity and Carbon Fluxes

Bh²,

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe decomposition of soil organic matter (SOM) is one of the most important processes influencing the global carbon (C) cycle, the physico-chemical characteristics of soils, the mineralization of nutrients for plant growth and soil food webs. Yet, priming effects are considered to be large enough to influence ecosystem carbon fluxes. Here we have tested the effects of soil restoration practices on priming effect and carbon fluxes.ResultOur results suggest that indirect effects are such as altered stabilization of older C associated with the increased inputs of fresh plant inputs (‘priming’) add uncertainty to the prediction of future soil C responses. Far ahead restoration influence the amount and composition of the decomposer organisms, including soil fauna, as well as the soil microbial community, by inducing up to more CO2 emission with fresh millet straw addition in fresh state than pre-decomposed one. Restoration had a very strong impact (increase by 22.7%) on basal soil organic matter mineralization but not on priming effect. The PE of non-restored site was lower than that of restored site by 14.9–22.7%; the lowest mineralization per unit carbon was recorded in the non-restored. Through the “4 per 1000” initiative, it has been very recently demonstrated that priming effect could have a noticeable impact on soil carbon sequestration. ConclusionWe have shown in our study that the degraded soil played a dominant positive role in the soil organic carbon mineralization. Our results provide solid evidence that SOC content plays a critical role in regulating apparent priming effects, with important implications for the improvement of C cycling models under global change scenarios.

show abstract

“…For this reason, shade objects focused the attention of scientist, companies, and water management institutions at the end of last decade. Shade balls are usually used as free-floating elements (individual units that float on the water surface, partially shade the water surface, reflect the incoming solar radiation, and act as physical barriers that hinder the escape of water), whilst squares or hexagons can be used as free-gloating elements or as continuous floating cover (these are materials "sheets" that float on the water surface and cover "shade" the water surface) [45].…”

Section: Shade Objects (Balls/squares/hexagons)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the number of research studies on the efficiency and environmental impact of shade covers is still scarce, most of the results reported so far demonstrate that this methodology significantly reduces water evaporation and contributes to the maintenance of water quality [35]. Several accurate studies carried out in the southeast of Spain (Segura River Basin, Murcia) and other semiarid and arid regions in China, USA, Egypt, Brazil, or Australia have demonstrated that SSCCs can mitigate relevant evaporation losses and save water for irrigation purposes (up to 84% evaporation reduction has been achieved in AWRs) [35,45]. Shade balls were supposed to save water from the very beginning of their use, even more efficiently than SSCCs.…”

Section: Benefits Of the Use Of Shade Covers Vs Overall Cost Of Their Manufacturing And Potential Environmental Damages Producedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Controversy over the Use of “Shade Covers” to Avoid Water Evaporation in Water Reservoirs

Martínez‐Espinosa

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water scarcity and sustainability are main current concerns affecting billions of people worldwide. Apart from policies designed to guarantee water supply, technologies and procedures have been developed to optimize the uses of water and water recycling as well as to minimize water scarcity. Among these technologies, those based on the use of bioinspired fibres, membranes, nanomaterials, liquid-liquid extraction methods using ionic liquids or approaches involving plants or microbes have been successfully carried out. One of the main problems associated with most of these technologies is the high cost of their implementation and maintenance. Consequently, other cheaper strategies have been explored, such as the use of shade covers. The objective of this work is to summarize the most recent findings on the use of shade covers (suspended shade cloth covers and shade objects) on water reservoirs, mainly agricultural water reservoirs (AWRs). Reflections on the investment-benefit relationship of this technological proposal are also herein discussed. Apart from traditional shade cloth clover, more recently, other covers like shade balls/squares/hexagons (shady objects) have also been proposed as promising approaches to save water and keep its quality. However, the manufacturing of shady objects, mainly made of polyethylene plastic, results in: (i) high cost (high energy cost and use of raw materials like crude oil and natural gas); (ii) significant production of residues, and (iii) visual environmental pollution. The main conclusion reached from this review is that the controversy over the use of shade covers continues in the spotlight of scientists, water managers, and related companies; although this approach saves water and prevents water quality deterioration, a large number of recalcitrant residues are produced, not only during their production, but also when they must be replaced due to deterioration.

show abstract

Critical evaluation of functional aspects of evaporation barriers through environmental and economics lens for evaporation suppression - A review on milestones from improved technologies

Cited by 17 publications

References 139 publications

Conservation Agriculture Effects on Soil Water Holding Capacity and Water-Saving Varied with Management Practices and Agroecological Conditions: A Review

Conservation Agriculture Effects on Soil Water Holding Capacity and Water-Saving Varied with Management Practices and Agroecological Conditions: A Review

Soil Restoration Practices Effects on Priming Effect Intensity and Carbon Fluxes

Controversy over the Use of “Shade Covers” to Avoid Water Evaporation in Water Reservoirs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About