Soil Water Evaporation: Surface Residue Rate and Placement Effects

Bond, J. J.; Willis, W. O.

doi:10.2136/sssaj1969.03615995003300030031x

Cited by 122 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be a case of imprecision in the rubric of potential evaporation as applied to pre-stage-two evaporation (e.g., Brutsaert and Chen, 1995;Van Bavel and Hillel, 1976) or simply modeling error, such as that induced by use of the monthly average of D. It may also represent actual resistances imposed by soil crusting or the mulching effect of plant litter. Bond and Willis (1969), for example, found that moderate amounts of straw (as low as 560 kg/ha) significantly reduced stage-one evaporation from experimental soil columns. Although use of a non-zero r ss for stage-one evaporation will necessarily be imprecise, we include small (relative to those representative of mid-to-late stage-two evaporation), fixed values in the calculation of e ps .…”

Section: Potential Rates Of Evaporation and Transpirationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the monthly mean soil-water balance with a statistical-dynamical ecohydrology model as coupled to a two-component canopy model

Kochendorfer

Ramı́rez

2010

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The statistical-dynamical annual water balance model of Eagleson (1978) is a pioneering work in the analysis of climate, soil and vegetation interactions. This paper describes several enhancements and modifications to the model that improve its physical realism at the expense of its mathematical elegance and analytical tractability. In particular, the analytical solutions for the root zone fluxes are re-derived using separate potential rates of transpiration and bare-soil evaporation. Those potential rates, along with the rate of evaporation from canopy interception, are calculated using the two-component Shuttleworth-Wallace (1985) canopy model. In addition, the soil column is divided into two layers, with the upper layer representing the dynamic root zone. The resulting ability to account for changes in root-zone water storage allows for implementation at the monthly timescale. This new version of the Eagleson model is coined the Statistical-Dynamical Ecohydrology Model (SDEM). The ability of the SDEM to capture the seasonal dynamics of the local-scale soil-water balance is demonstrated for two grassland sites in the US Great Plains. Sensitivity of the results to variations in peak green leaf area index (LAI) suggests that the mean peak green LAI is determined by some minimum in root zone soil moisture during the growing season. That minimum appears to be close to the soil matric potential at which the dominant grass species begins to experience water stress and well above the wilting point, thereby suggesting an ecological optimality hypothesis in which the need to avoid water-stress-induced leaf abscission is balanced by the maximization of carbon assimilation (and associated transpiration). Finally, analysis of the sensitivity of model-determined peak green LAI to soil texture shows that the coupled model is able to reproCorrespondence to: J. A. Ramírez (ramirez@engr.colostate.edu) duce the so-called "inverse texture effect", which consists of the observation that natural vegetation in dry climates tends to be most productive in sandier soils despite their lower water holding capacity. Although the determination of LAI based on complete or near-complete utilization of soil moisture is not a new approach in ecohydrology, this paper demonstrates its use for the first time with a new monthly statistical-dynamical model of the water balance. Accordingly, the SDEM provides a new framework for studying the controls of soil texture and climate on vegetation density and evapotranspiration.

show abstract

Section: Potential Rates Of Evaporation and Transpirationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the monthly mean soil-water balance with a statistical-dynamical ecohydrology model as coupled to a two-component canopy model

Kochendorfer

Ramı́rez

2010

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, surface crop residues most effectively reduce evaporative losses of soil water during periods of frequent rainfall and are less effective when the surface soil is dry for prolonged periods (Bond and Willis, 1969;Russel, 1939). Therefore, in the eastern Great Plains area, conservation of soil water by surface crop residues is greatest in the fall and spring, when crop plants are not extracting water.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Maintaining crop residues on soil surfaces also increases infiltration rates (Mannering and Meyer, 1963), reduces surface runoff (Greenland, 1975), reduces evaporation rates (Bond and Willis, 1969), and increases entrapment of snow (Willis et al, 1961)-all mechanisms by which water storage and crop growth are enhanced. Surface crop residues also result in lower average soil temperatures during the growing season and reduced diurnal temperature fluctuations (Larson et al, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Crop Residue Removal and Soil Productivity with No‐Till Corn, Sorghum, and Soybean

Doran¹,

Wilhelm²,

Power

1984

Soil Science Soc of Amer J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop residues have been considered during the past decade as alternate energy sources to supplement dwindling fossil fuel sources and enhance energy independence in the United States. Agricultural scientists have demonstrated the importance of crop residues in reducing soil erosion, enhancing the soil physical environment for plant growth, and as a reserve for major crop nutrients. In eastern Nebraska, we evaluated the effects of various amounts of surface crop residues (aboveground dry matter remaining after harvest) on dry‐land production of no‐till corn (Zea mays L.), sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] over a 3‐yr period. Where crop residues were completely removed after harvest, average grain and residue yields of corn and soybean were 22 and 24% lower, respectively, than where residues were not removed. Removal of 50% or addition of 50% (150%) surface crop residues had little or no effect on crop yields compared to no removal (100%).Sorghum yields were unaffected by residue removal, but stands were significantly less at the 150% residue rate. Yield reductions for corn and soybean resulted primarily from decreased soil water storage and excessive surface soil temperatures where residues were completely removed. Sorghum tolerated conditions of temperature and water stress better than other crops. Removal of surface crop residues can seriously reduce corn and soybean yields in climates where stressful conditions occur during the growing season. Considerations for using crop residues as alternate energy sources should include these potential reductions in grain and residue yields, as well as increased nutrient removal and greater potential for soil erosion.

show abstract

“…Organic matter increases the water storage ability of soils. Therefore, higher organic matter concentration means higher water availability for a crop [45]; -adjusting soil texture by mixing surface horizons with excess of sand with lower layers richer in clay (the presupposition for this activity is a suitable analysis of the soil profile and horizon distribution); -adopting fallow techniques (field plowed and harrowed but left unseeded for one year) aimed at accumulating water in the soil during the "rest" period. For example, the biennial rotation fallow-wheat can be a solution for crop areas where yearly rainfall is insufficient for continuous cultivation.…”

Section: Drought Stress and Dry Farmingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agronomic Management for Enhancing Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stresses—Drought, Salinity, Hypoxia, and Lodging

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abiotic stresses are currently responsible for significant losses in quantity and reduction in quality of global crop productions. In consequence, resilience against such stresses is one of the key aims of farmers and is attained by adopting both suitable genotypes and management practices. This latter aspect was reviewed from an agronomic point of view, taking into account stresses due to drought, water excess, salinity, and lodging. For example, drought tolerance may be enhanced by using lower plant density, anticipating the sowing or transplant as much as possible, using grafting with tolerant rootstocks, and optimizing the control of weeds. Water excess or hypoxic conditions during winter and spring can be treated with nitrate fertilizers, which increase survival rate. Salinity stress of sensitive crops may be alleviated by maintaining water content close to the field capacity by frequent and low-volume irrigation. Lodging can be prevented by installing shelterbelts against dominant winds, adopting equilibrated nitrogen fertilization, choosing a suitable plant density, and optimizing the management of pests and biotic diseases harmful to the stability and mechanic resistance of stems and roots.

show abstract

Soil Water Evaporation: Surface Residue Rate and Placement Effects

Cited by 122 publications

References 0 publications

Modeling the monthly mean soil-water balance with a statistical-dynamical ecohydrology model as coupled to a two-component canopy model

Modeling the monthly mean soil-water balance with a statistical-dynamical ecohydrology model as coupled to a two-component canopy model

Crop Residue Removal and Soil Productivity with No‐Till Corn, Sorghum, and Soybean

Agronomic Management for Enhancing Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stresses—Drought, Salinity, Hypoxia, and Lodging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About