Least Limiting Water and Matric Potential Ranges of Agricultural Soils with T Calculated Physical Restriction Thresholds Renato P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Agricultural Water Management 240 (2020) 106299 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat Least limiting water and matric potential ranges of agricultural soils with T calculated physical restriction thresholds Renato P. de Limaa,*, Cássio A. Tormenab, Getulio C. Figueiredoc, Anderson R. da Silvad, Mário M. Rolima a Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Rua Dom Manoel de Medeiros, s/n, Dois Irmãos, 52171-900, Recife, PE, Brazil b Department of Agronomy, State University of Maringá, Av. Colombo, 5790, 87020-900, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil c Department of Soil Science, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Bento Gonçalves, 7712, 91540-000, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil d Agronomy Department, Goiano Federal Institute, Geraldo Silva Nascimento Road, km 2.5, 75790-000, Urutai, GO, Brazil ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The least limiting water range (LLWR) is a modern and widely used soil physical quality indicator based on Agricultural water management predefined limits of water availability, aeration, and penetration resistance, providing a range ofsoilwater Soil physical restrictions contents in which their limitations for plant growth are minimized. However, to set up the upper and lower Water availability limits for a range of soil physical properties is a challenge for LLWR computation and hence for adequate water management. Moreover, the usual LLWR is given in terms of the soil water content in which only for field capacity and permanent wilting point, the matric potential range is known. In this paper, we present a procedure for calculating LLWR using Genuchten’s water retention curve parameters and introducing the least limiting matric potential ranges of agricultural soils, which we named LLMPR, defined as the range of matric potential for which soil aeration, water availability, and mechanical resistance would not be restrictive to plant growth. Additionally, we calculated the minimal air-filled porosity, field capacity, permanent wilting point, and limiting soil penetration resistance thresholds which define the upper and lower limits of LLWR and LLMPR. Finally, we present some application examples using experimental data (from cultivated and forest soils) and developed an algorithm for their calculation in the R software. The calculated soil physical restriction thresholds were sen- sitive to changes in soil structure and clay content and were changeable rather than fixed. Based on experimental data, our calculations with the calculated parameters showed that an increase in LLWR and its corresponding LLMPR could be achieved with improvements in soil structure. Higher water content at field capacity, as well as a larger soil penetration resistance threshold to a given root elongation rate were observed in the structured in comparison to the cultivated soil. The LLWR and LLMPR as presented in this study was computationally im- plemented as an R function (R software), named llwr_llmpr, and in an interactive web page, both available in the R package soilphysics, version 4.0 or later, available from https://arsilva87.github.io/soilphysics/ or CRAN (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/soilphysics/index.html). 1. Introduction impose restrictions for plant growth, even within the range of PAW (Letey, 1985; Silva et al., 1994; Groenevelt et al., 2001; Asgarzadeh Plant-available water (PAW) is a well-known concept that was first et al., 2014; Lima et al., 2016). proposed by Veihmeyer and Hendrickson (1927, 1931)(Asgarzadeh Temporal and spatial changes in water content interact with the soil et al., 2014). It is defined as the water content between field capacity structure, influencing many soil physical properties. Letey (1985) (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP). In the absence of other considered that air-filled porosity and soil penetration resistance re- physical restrictions (e.g., soil aeration and impedance to root elonga- strictions may occur within the PAW range in such a way that water tion), plants should be able to grow within the PAW range without uptake would be limited by rising soil mechanical resistance under water stress (Letey, 1985; Silva et al., 1994). However, due to the drying or reducing root oxygen supply under wetter conditions. For this complex nature of soil particles and soil structure changes induced by approach, he introduced the term non-limiting water range (NLWR) to agricultural traffic, both aeration and mechanical impedance may characterize the water content range in which plant growth should not ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.P. de Lima). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106299 Received 17 March 2020; Received in revised form 25 May 2020; Accepted 28 May 2020 0378-3774/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. R.P. de Lima, et al. Agricultural Water Management 240 (2020) 106299 be restricted by aeration, penetration resistance, and soil water poten- (from cultivated and forest soils) and developed an algorithm for cal- tial. Silva et al. (1994) quantitatively refined the NLWR concept in- culation in the R software. troduced by Letey (1985) and renamed it the least limiting water range (LLWR), which takes into account the water content range for which 2. Theoretical formulation soil aeration, soil penetration resistance, and soil water potentials at FC and PWP should impose minimal stress on plant growth. 2.1. Least limiting water (LLWR) and matric potential ranges (LLMPR) Generally, the LLWR is given in terms of soil water content (e.g., Silva et al., 1994; Leão and da Silva, 2004; Lima et al., 2016), and only To avoid any confusion in signals and for the mathematical for- the matric potentials at the FC and PWP are known, because they are mulation, the matric potential (Ψ) will be described in terms of water assigned as input physical restriction thresholds for the calculation of tension (h), which can be given as h = | Ψ |. To calculate LLWR and the LLWR (Silva et al., 1994; Leão and da Silva, 2004; Lima et al., LLMPR, both water retention and penetration resistance curves are 2016). This means that the matric potential at limiting air-filled por- necessary. Genuchten’s model (van Genuchten, 1980) (Eq. 1) is used to osity and mechanical resistance is unknown in the current LLWR ap- describe the soil water retention curve, whereas the model proposed by proach. Approaches using the matric potential ranges at which the soil Busscher (1990) (Eq. 2) is applied to describe the behavior of soil pe- physical restriction thresholds occur have been applied in the studies of netration resistance as a function of water content: Groenevelt et al. (2001) and Asgarzadeh et al. (2010) for calculation of 1 n n 1 the Integral Water Capacity (IWC) (see also Asgarzadeh et al., 2014 and =r + ( s r )[1+ (h ) ] (1) Lima et al., 2016). The calculation of the LLWR in terms of matric Q= d e f potential could allow agricultural management using both the water s (2) content and the matric potential (e.g., using tensiometers), which where θ is the soil volumetric water content (m3 m−3); h is the water would be useful for applications at the field scale (Tormena et al., tension (hPa); θs and θr are the saturated and residual water contents 3 −3 1999). (m m ), respectively; Q is the soil penetrometer resistance (MPa); s The LLWR is a widely used soil physical quality indicator for water is the soil bulk density (Mg m−3); and α and n (Eq. 1), as well as d, e, management (e.g., Safadoust et al., 2014; Ferreira et al., 2017; Oliveira and f (Eq. 2), are the fitting parameters. et al., 2019), but knowledge of the upper and lower limits (air filled- Using defined values of field capacity (hFC, hPa) and permanent porosity, FC, PWP, and soil penetration resistance) for a range of soil wilting point (hPWP, hPa), the volumetric soil water content at the field properties is a major challenge for LLWR applications at the field scale capacity (θFC) and permanent wilting point (θWP) can be calculated (Clark et al., 2003; Bengough, 2012; Czyż and Dexter, 2012; Dexter using Genuchten’s soil water retention curve model by applying Eqs. 3 et al., 2012; Assouline and Or, 2014; van Lier and Wendroth, 2016; van and 4: Lier, 2017; Meskini-Vishkaee et al., 2018; Pulido-Moncada and 1 n 1 Munkholm, 2019; Lima et al., 2020). Silva et al. (1994) suggested a FC =r + ( s r )[1+ (hFC ) ] n (3) 3 −3 minimal aeration porosity of 0.10 m m , a matric potential at field 1 n 1 capacity and permanent wilting point of -100 and -15,000 hPa, re- WP =r + ( s r )[1+ (hPWP ) ] n (4) spectively, and a limiting soil penetration resistance of 2.0 MPa as the The θ at which Q reaches a critical value (Qcritical, MPa) for plant physical restriction thresholds of the LLWR. However, recent studies growth, θQcritical, can be calculated from Eq. (2), using Eq. (5), whereas show that these thresholds depend on the plant's response, soil porosity, the h corresponding to the θQcritical (hQcritical) can be calculated using and hydraulic and mechanical properties of soil, instead of being ar- Genuchen’s model, given in terms of h as a function of θ (Eq. 6): bitrarily applied (Meskini-Vishkaee et al., 2018; Pulido-Moncada and 1 Munkholm, 2019; Wiecheteck et al., 2020). e Qcritical For example, Pulido-Moncada and Munkholm (2019) suggest that Qcritical = d f the minimum air filled-porosity could be calculated as a function of s (5) minimum relative gas diffusion for plant oxygen supply. Assouline and n/(1 n ) 1/n Or (2014) provide a simple procedure for estimating field capacity as a 1 Qcritical r hQcritical = 1 function of water retention curve components. Czyż and Dexter (2012) s r (6) suggest that the wilting of plants may occur at the hydraulic cut-off of 3 −3 soil, which Dexter et al.