Effect of soil water retention barriers on turfgrass growth and soil water content

Demirel, Kürşad; Kavdır, Yasemin

doi:10.1007/s00271-012-0345-1

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Available water capacity (−33 to −1500 kPa) plotted against (a) sand content and (b) soil organic carbon (SOC) from NCSS database ( n = 276), and (c) sand content from the literature ( n = 123) (Al‐Rumikhani, ; Archer & Smith, ; Arora, Gajri, & Prihar, ; Arora, Singh, Sidhu, & Thind, ; Bauer & Black, ; Bruneau & Twomlow, ; Ceballos, Martinez‐Fernandez, Santos, & Alonso, ; da Costa, Albuquerque, Pertile, & da Silva, ; Demirel & Kavdir, ; Dunne & Willmott, ; Frank & Stuanes, ; Narjary, Aggarwal, Singh, Chakraborty, & Singh, ; Obia, Mulder, Martinsen, Cornelissen, & Børresen, ; Rivers & Shipp, ; Sinclair, Hammond, & Harrison, ; Yuan, Ouyang, Zheng, & Xu, )…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mean evapotranspiration (2016-2017) at the study site was approximately 4.2 mm of water day −1 during the growing season (April 15 to September 15) (UW Extension (Al-Rumikhani, 2002;Archer & Smith, 1972;Arora, Gajri, & Prihar, 1991;Arora, Singh, Sidhu, & Thind, 2011;Bauer & Black, 1992;Bruneau & Twomlow, 1999;Ceballos, Martinez-Fernandez, Santos, & Alonso, 2002;da Costa, Albuquerque, Pertile, & da Silva, 2013;Demirel & Kavdir, 2013;Dunne & Willmott, 1996;Frank & Stuanes, 2003;Narjary, Aggarwal, Singh, Chakraborty, & Singh, 2012;Obia, Mulder, Martinsen, Cornelissen, & Børresen, 2016;Rivers & Shipp, 1978;Sinclair, Hammond, & Harrison, 1998;Yuan, Ouyang, Zheng, & Xu, 2012) Ag Weather). The soils (0-50 cm depth) would be depleted of water in 10-16 days without rainfall or irrigation.…”

Section: Soil Water Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of carbon on moisture storage in soils of the Wisconsin Central Sands, USA

Yost

Hartemink

2019

European J Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantifying soil water storage is important for plant growth and agricultural production. This is particularly important in sandy soils because they are widely cultivated and prone to drought. We investigated the effect of soil organic carbon (SOC), soil texture and gravel content on soil moisture characteristics in sandy soils. Soil moisture characteristics were analysed using standard soil physical characterization as well as visible–near infrared (vis–NIR) spectroscopy and pedotransfer functions (PTFs). Volumetric water content (−10, −33, −1500 kPa) and available water capacity (AWC) increased by 0.01 to 0.02 m3m−3 with a 2% increase in silt plus clay content. Available water capacity increased by about 0.05 m3m−3 with a 1% increase in SOC. A 5% increase in gravel in the subsoil decreased the volumetric water content of the soil by 0.01 m3m−3. Predictions of volumetric water contents and AWC by vis–NIR were the best when using a random forest model. Pedotransfer functions for AWC predictions performed best when sand, silt, clay, bulk density and SOC were included. Soil moisture storage ranged from 44 to 65 mm in the top 50 cm. At mean evapotranspiration (4.2 mm day−1), irrigation requirements were reduced by 6 days in the sandy soils that have larger SOC and silt contents in the topsoil. These soils are sandy throughout but have subtle differences in particle‐size distribution, SOC concentrations and gravel content. These differences affect soil moisture storage considerably. Soil management practices that increase the SOC contents in these sandy soils favour moisture storage and tend to reduce irrigation requirements. Highlights SOC, soil texture and gravel affect soil moisture characteristics in sandy soils. With vis–NIR and PTFs, soil water storage, water characteristics and AWC in soils with >80% sand can be quantified and predicted. Available water capacity increased by about 0.05 m3m−3 with a 1% increase in SOC. Subtle differences in particle‐size distribution affect soil moisture storage and reduce irrigation requirements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Soil Water Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of carbon on moisture storage in soils of the Wisconsin Central Sands, USA

Yost

Hartemink

2019

European J Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Demirel and Kavdir (2013) reported water savings of 35% and 70% compared to control sands without water-saving membranes while producing the highest quality turfgrass and 39% more turfgrass clippings when water impermeable poly- Figure 1 Aerial view of water barrier research improvement for two and four-year-old Kiwi fruit trees growing on sandy soils near Adelaide, Australia. Note the dark blue-green leaf color and smaller tree size on sands without asphalt water barrier and nonirrigated.…”

Section: Early Reports Of Improved Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a new long-term drought resilient soil water retention technology

Kavdır

Zhang²,

Basso³

et al. 2014

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The development of polymer technology allowed switching from asphalt barriers to relatively inexpensive polyethylene membranes (Garrity et al, 1992). Since initial testing of the polyethylene membranes on growing rice under rainfed conditions in India (Parshar, 1978), they have been successfully tested for rice production on sandy soils in Thailand and clay soils in the Philippines (Garrity et al, 1992), for perennial ryegrass ( Lolium perenne L.) growth on loamy sand soils in Turkey (Demirel and Kavdir, 2013), and for corn production on sandy soils in Australia and Michigan (references in Kavdir et al, 2014). The effect of the polyethylene membranes on the yield differed for different crops.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Flat plane shaped polyethylene membranes were installed at depths of 25 and 40 cm in the study of Garrity et al (1992). Demirel and Kavdir (2013) used U‐shaped polyethylene membranes 80 cm wide and 10 cm deep installed at depths of 30 and 40 cm. U‐shaped membranes 30 cm wide and 15 cm deep were used in field experiments in Michigan (Kavdir et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Subsurface Water Retention Technology Improves Root Zone Water Storage for Corn Production on Coarse‐Textured Soils

Guber

Smucker

Berhanu

et al. 2015

Vadose Zone Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subsurface water retention technology (SWRT) is a new, long-term approach developed to improve water storage capacities of sandy soils for sustainable crop production. It consists of subsurface polyethylene membranes installed within the soil proile that prevent the loss of irrigation water via deep percolation. Our objective was to identify membrane shape and placement to maximize the reduction in irrigation losses. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to measure the distribution of water in a surface-irrigated sand lysimeter with six membranes of different geometry installed at four depths. The HYDRUS-2D model was calibrated using soil water content data to estimate water losses from four soils modiied with SWRT membranes.Membranes with 2:1, 3:1, and 5:1 aspect ratios installed at the 20-and 40-cm depths in sand, sandy loam, loamy sand, and sandy loam soils were used in the simulations. Different vertical and horizontal alignments were also tested for the 2:1 membrane aspect ratio. The HYDRUS-2D model adequately described the dynamics of water content measured in the lysimeter experiment. The simulation results showed that the highest reductions in water loss for most studied soil textures were achieved with a 2:1 aspect ratio membrane installed at the 20-cm depth. The SWRT was sensitive to excessive irrigation, and its performance declined rapidly in response to overirrigation. Our modeling results demonstrated a high potential for the SWRT to reduce water losses from the plant root zone. Further testing of membrane performance is needed for different crops in real soils across a range of different climates.

show abstract

Effect of soil water retention barriers on turfgrass growth and soil water content

Cited by 14 publications

References 26 publications

Effects of carbon on moisture storage in soils of the Wisconsin Central Sands, USA

Effects of carbon on moisture storage in soils of the Wisconsin Central Sands, USA

Development of a new long-term drought resilient soil water retention technology

Subsurface Water Retention Technology Improves Root Zone Water Storage for Corn Production on Coarse‐Textured Soils

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About