2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.06.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimal soil physical quality inferred through structural regression and parameter interactions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
132
1
11

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 152 publications
(154 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
10
132
1
11
Order By: Relevance
“…However, with the use of WP4-T in estimating PWP, similarly to when using the FC6 or IP in the FC estimation, substantially higher AWC values are achieved, changing the classification of these Oxisols regarding water retention. These findings are of great importance to clarify that the methods for estimating AWC can result in very different interpretations of the plant-available water holding capacity, reflecting on practical applications, particularly when the value of AWC 0.20 m 3 m -3 or 20 mm water/10 cm soil were considered as optimal for maximum growth rate and functionality of plant roots in fine-textured soils (Reynolds et al, 2008).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…However, with the use of WP4-T in estimating PWP, similarly to when using the FC6 or IP in the FC estimation, substantially higher AWC values are achieved, changing the classification of these Oxisols regarding water retention. These findings are of great importance to clarify that the methods for estimating AWC can result in very different interpretations of the plant-available water holding capacity, reflecting on practical applications, particularly when the value of AWC 0.20 m 3 m -3 or 20 mm water/10 cm soil were considered as optimal for maximum growth rate and functionality of plant roots in fine-textured soils (Reynolds et al, 2008).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In this study the macropore values, in both areas and depths, were between 13.29 and 14.31 % higher than the 10 % considered the minimum for plant growth (Drewry & Paton, 2005;Drewry et al, 2006;Reynolds et al, 2008).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…The soil matrix air capacity (ACM) was calculated by the difference between the equilibrium volumetric water content at -1 and -10 kPa. The relative water capacity (RWC) was obtained by the ratio between the field capacity and the soil total porosity (REYNOLDS et al, 2008).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fidalski et al (2008) also determined the ACM, finding values from 0.16 to 0.19 m 3 m -3 , which were considerably greater than our values (0.06 to 0.08 m 3 m -3 ), indicating that the soil texture has a large influence in the ACM value. Besides, according to Reynolds et al (2008), an ACM criterion has not yet been fixed, but they consider that an ACM upper than 0.10 m 3 m -3 appears to be acceptable. Thus, our results indicated an improper physical quality in all treatments applied, as a function of this parameter.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%