Predicting soil water repellency using hydrophobic organic compounds and their vegetation origin

Mao, Jiang‐Gao; Nierop, Klaas G.J.; Rietkerk, Max; Dekker, Stefan C.

doi:10.5194/soil-1-411-2015

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is defined as when water drop contact angles are between 0 and 90° (Buczko et al, 2006), or when repellency index (RI) values determined from sorptivity of ethanol and water are >1.95 (Hallett et al, 2001). Soil water repellency may be derived from above‐ and below‐ground vegetation; but more recent research has suggested that hydrophobic compounds from roots (especially grasses) may be more important than previously thought (Mao et al, 2014, 2015, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Repellency and Hydrophobicity of Some Major Agricultural Crop Residues

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water repellency of agricultural crop residues may affect the hydrologic balance and increase runoff loss of pesticides by greater wash off from hydrophobic residue. We conducted a laboratory study to measure water repellency and hydrophobicity of 30 major agricultural crops (grass, legume, cereal, oilseed, pulse, and specialty crops). Crop samples were collected in southern Alberta, Canada in 2017 and 2018. Water repellency (WR) of oven‐dried (60°C) and ground (<2 mm) crop residues was measured using the water drop penetration time (WDPT) and molarity of ethanol (MED) tests. Hydrophobicity was evaluated using the ratio of hydrophobic CH– to hydrophilic CO–functional groups using Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The WDPTs of the 30 agricultural crops ranged from 8.3 to 2438 s, suggesting that crop species influenced WR of the dried and undecomposed residues. Needle‐and‐thread grass (Stipa comata Trin. and Rupr.), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis [Kunth] Lag. ex Griffiths), and western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii Rydb.) were the most WR crops based on WDPT. Fababean (Vicia faba), mustard (Sinapis alba L.), and sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis) were the least WR crops. Mean WDPTs were significantly (P ≤ 0.05) greater for grass than the other four crop types by 23 to 44 times. Significant differences in WDPT occurred among crop species within each of the six crop types. A significant positive correlation occurred between WDPT and hydrophobicity (r = 0.54), but not between WDPT and organic carbon. Overall, crop type and species may influence WR of crop residues and could affect the hydrologic balance. Core Ideas Agricultural crop species residue influenced water repellency and hydrophobicity Grass was the most water repellent and hydrophobic crop type A positive correlation occurred between water repellency and hydrophobicity The physical morphology of leaves may contribute to water repellency Water repellency differences also occurred for species within the six crop types

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Repellency and Hydrophobicity of Some Major Agricultural Crop Residues

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Remarkable are the often huge spatial differences in persistence of actual water repellency in the grass-covered plots across a horizontal difference of 75 cm, with wettable as well as slightly, strongly, severely, and extremely water repellent soil samples. These differences in persistence may partly be due to differences in soil water content, but may also be the result of differences in hydrophobic compounds and their concentrations as found by Mao et al (2014Mao et al ( , 2015. Gordon and Hallett (2014) describe even the spatial variability of the severity of soil water repellency at the millimetre scale by means of the contact angle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These substances may be released from a variety of plant species, decaying organic matter, soil fauna, and microorganisms (e.g. Mao et al, 2014Mao et al, , 2015MataixSolera et al, 2007). This coating does not necessarily cover the soil particles completely nor is it always very thick.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of grass removal on wetting and actual water repellency in a sandy soil

Oostindie

Dekker

Wesseling

et al. 2016

Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil water content and actual water repellency were assessed for soil profiles at two sites in a bare and grasscovered plot of a sand pasture, to investigate the impact of the grass removal on both properties. The soil of the plots was sampled six times in vertical transects to a depth of 33 cm between 23 May and 7 October 2002. On each sampling date the soil water contents were measured and the persistence of actual water repellency was determined of field-moist samples. Considerably higher soil water contents were found in the bare versus the grass-covered plots. These alterations are caused by differences between evaporation and transpiration rates across the plots. Noteworthy are the often excessive differences in soil water content at depths of 10 to 30 cm between the bare and grass-covered plots. These differences are a consequence of water uptake by the roots in the grass-covered plots. The water storage in the upper 19 cm of the bare soil was at least two times greater than in the grass-covered soil during dry periods. A major part of the soil profile in the grass-covered plots exhibited extreme water repellency to a depth of 19 cm on all sampling dates, while the soil profile of the bare plots was completely wettable on eight of the twelve sampling dates. Significant differences in persistence of actual water repellency were found between the grass-covered and bare plots.

show abstract

“…The highest severity of soil WR has been observed below conifers (firs, cedars and pines), whereas soils below oaks have been found to be much more wettable. These results are in agreement with findings from other authors, who have reported that conifers are much more prone than oaks to induce soil WR, because of the chemical composition of their tissues, which include resins, waxes and other substances able to cause hydrophobicity in soils (Conde et al ., ; Ito et al ., ; Mataix‐Solera & Doerr, ; Lozano et al ., ; Mao et al ., ). Different authors have reported soil WR in oaklands from Mediterranean areas (Cerdà et al ., ; Mataix‐Solera et al ., ; Jordán et al ., ; Zavala et al ., ; Zavala et al ., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Spatial Gradients of Intensity and Persistence of Soil Water Repellency Under Different Forest Types in Central Mexico

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organic residues release hydrophobic compounds to the soil that may induce soil water repellency (WR), which may inhibit infiltration and increase runoff and soil loss rates. Although there are many studies on soil WR through the world, very few investigations have been conducted in Mexican areas. This paper studies the natural background of soil WR in soils from central Mexico under representative forest types, analyzing the spatial distribution of soil WR in relation with tree canopy, vegetation cover and main soil chemical (pH, CaCO3, organic C content and exchangeable cations) and physical properties (texture). The water drop penetration time and the ethanol tests were used to assess persistence and intensity of soil WR, respectively. Although soil WR was not related with soil properties, it decreased strongly from soil below the canopy of conifers to soil below oaks. When different types of vegetation cover were considered, the proportion of water‐repellent soil increased following the sequence: bare soil < shrubs and herbaceous plants < shrubs < trees from fir, fir‐pine‐oak and pine‐oak forest. We found an inverse relation with distance to the tree trunks, contributing to create a patchy pattern of soil WR, with soils under the canopy of conifers showing the most severe WR levels. The spatial distribution of soil WR is also conditioned by microclimatic gradients, as persistence and intensity of soil WR were usually lower in shaded areas (upslope transects from the tree trunks), where soil moisture content is expected to be higher on average through the year. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Predicting soil water repellency using hydrophobic organic compounds and their vegetation origin

Cited by 34 publications

References 60 publications

Water Repellency and Hydrophobicity of Some Major Agricultural Crop Residues

Water Repellency and Hydrophobicity of Some Major Agricultural Crop Residues

Impacts of grass removal on wetting and actual water repellency in a sandy soil

Spatial Gradients of Intensity and Persistence of Soil Water Repellency Under Different Forest Types in Central Mexico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About