- Email: [email protected]
Changes in water retention properties due to the application of sugar foam in red soils
Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
Changes in water retention properties due to the application of sugar foam in red soils C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes a,∗ , J.A. Amorós Ortíz-Villajos a , F.J. García Navarro a , S. Bravo Martín-Consuegra a , C. Sánchez Jiménez b , D. Chocano Eteson a , R. Jiménez-Ballesta c a Escuela Universitaria de Ingeniería Técnica Agrícola, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (School of Technical Agricultural Engineering. University of Castilla-La Mancha), Ronda de Calatrava, 7, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain b Unidad de Suelos, Instituto de Tecnología Química y Medioambiental, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain c Departamento de Geología y Geoquímica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Ciudad Real, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 March 2011 Accepted 12 June 2011 Available online 22 July 2011 Keywords: Water retention Sugar waste Soil physical properties Soil water characteristic curve Red soils
a b s t r a c t This work describes the influence of the application of sugar foam (an organic residue from sugar beet industry) on water retention properties, over an extended period of time (>25 years), in two red soils in the La Mancha region of Spain. The properties of gravimetric moisture at field capacity, gravimetric moisture in the permanent wilting point and available water retention capacity both in the original soil – without the addition of sugar foam – and in the soil affected by the addition of sugar foam are compared. For this purpose, the profiles are characterised macro morphologically. Chemical, physical–chemical and mineralogical parameters are determined, in addition to determining the water retention curves of each soil with tensiometers and Richards pressure plates. The sugar foam applied to the soil altered its physical and chemical properties. An increase in contents of organic matter (3.5% versus 1.4%), calcium carbonate (40.8% versus 0%) and pH (8.2 versus 6.3) are observed in the superficial horizon of the studied soils, although there is no such significant increase in electrical conductivity (0.33 dS/m versus 0.25 dS/m). With regard to the physical properties, the depth of horizon A increases (32 cm versus 12 cm), the stoniness reduces (5% versus 25%), the structure is well developed, due to the texture becomes finer (silty versus sandy clay loam), and, finally, the bulk density reduces (0.79 g cm−3 versus 1.19 g cm−3 ). The gravimetric moisture at field capacity was 49% in the soil altered with sugar foam, versus 12% in the non-altered soil; the gravimetric moisture in the permanent wilting point was 14.5% versus 8% and the available water retention capacity was 34.5% and 4%, respectively. It can be concluded that the increase of calcium carbonate, organic matter and the reduction of bulk density are the most influential factors in this process. The scientific novelty of this work is that the hydro-behaviour of the soil due to the addition of sugar foam improves the characteristic values of moisture and, therefore, the agronomical qualities of the soil. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Water retention is a hydro physical property of soil that can be described by the dependence between soil water content and soil water potential (Walczak et al., 2006). The fact that two soils have the same matric potential does not mean that they possess the same amount of water, therefore not all this water is available for crops, and what is interesting from the agronomical point of view is how much water could be used for plants. A common requirement is to know this relationship in nonsaturated soil through the water retention curve (or soil water
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 926295300; fax: +34 926295351. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes). 0378-3774/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2011.06.008
characteristic curve). Normally this curve represents the potential as a function of the mass or volumetric moisture of the soil, and, at other times, the volumetric moisture of the soil as a function of the matric potential. The water retention curve can be constructed from experimental measures or from empirical equations known as pedotransfer functions (Wösten et al., 2001). The main properties of the soil that influence the water retention curves are texture and structure (Nimmo, 1997). At high potential values, the amount of water retained depends on the capillary effect and on the distribution of pore size; which it is greatly affected by the structure of the soil (Kironchi et al., 1995; Pachepski and Rawls, 2003; Juárez et al., 2006; Juhász et al., 2007). On the other hand, at low potential values, retention is due to the increase in absorption, more influenced by texture and specific surface of the soil materials (Kironchi et al., 1995; Juárez et al., 2006; Nimmo,
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839
1997). In general, the higher content in clay means the more water retention at a given potential. Williams et al. (1983) showed that the factors influencing water retention properties are the distribution of the particle size, the clay mineralogy, the content in organic matter and the bulk density of the soil, which are properties related to the aforementioned texture and structure. The type of clay was also highlighted as an important factor in water retention by Kironchi et al. in 1995. The effect of the organic matter was studied by Hollis et al. (1977) and by Rawls et al. (2003) and the influence of the bulk density was also highlighted previously by Reeve et al. (1973) who showed that, for horizon A, the volumetric moisture and available water increased with the reduction of bulk density. In addition to the aforementioned properties, Abrol et al. (1968) stated that the calcium carbonate content, particularly present in soils in arid and semi-arid areas, should be taken into account when available water values are estimated from textural considerations. Walczak et al. (2006) considered this parameter as well (2006). Sugar foam is a relatively abundant waste that has undergone a significant increase in areas with a developed sugar extraction industry. The application of this type of organic waste to the soil is a widespread practice, especially in the last 20 or 30 years due to the improvements observed in some soil properties (Sikora and Azad, 1993) and the increase in the quality and quantity of crops (Tejada and González, 2003; Villa, 2005). This addition may affect some of the soil characteristics. Therefore, there has been research on the influence on the chemical properties of soils (López et al., 2001; Madejón et al., 2001; Garrido et al., 2003; Alonso et al., 2006; Vidal et al., 2006) and, lately, on red soils (García Navarro et al., 2009). The possible change of the physical properties related to the water retention capacity, because of the application of this waste, has not been assessed although it is known that these properties are particularly important for agricultural soils. It is estimated that the total amount of waste generated every year (not including waste from agriculture, forests, mines, quarries, construction and some others), in the European Union-25, is around 1300 million tonnes (European Commission, 2005). The European Union in its “Waste Management Strategy” points out, as one of its objectives, that it is necessary to promote sustainable and rational waste management, without it being a threat to public health and the environment. The European strategy sets out a hierarchical structuring of the different management alternatives, among which it is worth citing non-hazardous waste disposal (European Communities, 2000). Sugar foam is the residue obtained from the manufacture of sugar which is produced after the beet juice is purified by flocculation of colloidal matter with a calcium hydroxide solution (Ca(OH)2 ), followed by a treatment with CO2 . It is always rich in organic matter (around 7%) and calcium carbonate (approximately 40%) (Azucarera Ebro, 2005; Villa, 2005; Jiménez-Moraza et al., 2006). The Spanish annual production of this type of waste ranges from 60 to 70 million tonnes, 50% of which is dry matter. Nonetheless, a low percentage is added to the soil in contrast to other European countries that apply almost their entire production to cultivated soils (Jiménez-Moraza et al., 2006). The water retention properties in two red soils typical of the La Mancha region (Spain) are compared in this work: a natural red soil and other similar with the addition of sugar foam. These soils are not selected only for their agronomic value, but also for their palaeoclimatic and palaeopedological importance as well as their environmental interest (Jiménez-Ballesta and Vizaíno, 1978). The effect is studied after having applied sugar foam for approximately 25 years and the physical-chemical parameters that influence on soil water retention properties are analysed in both soils.
1835
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area and sampling procedure The work was carried out on two similar red soils (about 30 km from each other) from the La Mancha region in Castilla-La Mancha, Central Spain. The soils are dedicated to dry farming with similar plough management. They are typical soils from this semi-arid Mediterranean region that, derived from Ordovician-Silurian rocks, constitute around 17% of the soils in Castilla-La Mancha. The area has a Xeric moisture regime and a Mesic temperature regime (Soil Survey Staff, 2006). In the Profile 1 soil (in Las Casas, Ciudad Real, Castilla-La Mancha), foam waste from a sugar industry had been deposited for approximately 25 years (20–40 t/ha/year). The sugar foam was provided by the Spanish producer Azucarera Ebro S.L. that marketed it as a mineral amendment with the name Carbocal (Azucarera Ebro, 2005). In the other soil, Profile 2 (Almagro, Ciudad Real, Castilla-La Mancha), a natural soil, there was no sugar foam waste addition during the same period. According to the Soil Taxonomy, the two soil profiles were classified as Typic Rhodoxeralf (Soil Survey Staff, 2006). The soils were Terric Anthrosol (Eutric, Clayic) in the case of Profile 1 and Haplic Luvisol (Ruptic, Rhodic) in the case of Profile 2, in accordance with FAO-ISRIC-ISSS (2006). The two profiles were described with FAO guidelines (2006) and, subsequently, samples were collected from each horizon for both profiles which were air dried and sieved (<2 mm) to carry out the analysis. A sample of around 6 kg was taken from the superficial horizon for each profile that was used, without being sieved, to determine the water retention curve with tensiometer. Another similar sample, after being sieved (<2 mm), was used to determine the water retention curve with Richards plates (1948). To determine the bulk density samples were taken in these horizons with cylinders of 100 cm3 . 2.2. Analytical methods The analytical determinations were carried out according to SCS-USDA (1972). In particular, the soil texture was determined using the hydrometer method (Gee and Bauder, 1986) and the determination of calcium carbonate was carried out with a calcimeter. The active calcium carbonate equivalent or “active lime” was determined with NH4 -oxalate as Drouineau described (1942). The organic matter was determined by potassium dichromate oxidation and titration of dichromate remaining with ammonium ferrous(II) sulphate (Anne, 1945). The bulk density for horizon A was determined by the cylinder method (Porta et al., 1999). All the samples were extracted and analysed in triplicate. The clay mineralogical analysis was carried out with X-ray diffraction techniques according to Moore and Reynolds (1989). A chemical treatment of the samples with ethylene glycol was carried out to detect expandable minerals, and with dimethyl sulfoxide to differentiate chlorite and kaolinite. A thermal treatment was also carried out at 550 ◦ C for 2 h. The samples were analysed through a Cu K␣ source (Philips-Panalytical X-PERT diffractometer), with a graphite monochrometer of 40 kV and 40 mA and a sensitivity of 2 × 103 cps. The measuring ranges were 2–75◦ and 2–50◦ 2, the goniometer speed was 0.04 and 0.05◦ 2/s with a time constant of 0.4 to 1 s for the random powder and glass slides, respectively. Two types of moisture characteristic curves were calculated: the first type (drying curve) was carried out in duplicate on the soil from the superficial horizon of each profile without sieving. Samples were oven dried at 105 ◦ C (Porta, 1986) to constant weight. For each sample, two pots were filled with the dry soil in which all the elements, except the soil, had previously been weighed. Each sample of soil was saturated with water and left to drain for 48 h.
25 30 50 – Gradual and irregular Net and plane Net and irregular – Common fine and few coarse Few coarse and fine Coarse – Common fine and medium Few medium None – Sticky, plastic, friable and soft Sticky, plastic, firm, hard – –
Pores Roots Consistence
5 YR 4/6 2.5 YR 5/6 2.5 YR 4/8 – Ap (0–12) Bt1 (12–45) 2Bt2 (45–70) R (>96)
Structure Colour (dry) Horizons depth (cm)
Quartzites ALMAGRO 38◦ 55 56.0 (N)–03◦ 44 45.0 (W)419200 (X)–4309668 (Y) Haplic Luvisol (Ruptic, Rhodic)/Typic Rhodoxeralf
Moderate, polyhedron blocky, medium Strong, angular blocky, coarse – –
Stoniness (%) Limit
C-2 Common stoniness C-4 Well drained C-3 Sloping Hillside Dry farming
Stoniness Drainage Slope Topography Vegetation/use Parent material Location/coordinates
10 YR 7/3 10 Y 7/2 10 Y 7/2 7.5 YR 8/3 10 R 4/6 Ap1 (0–12) Ap2 (12–20) Ap3 (20–32) 2Bw (32–60) 2Bt (60–110)
Soil type FAO/soil taxonomy
Gradual and wavy 5 Abrupt and smooth 2 Abrupt and smooth 2 Gradual and irregular 2 – 10 Few fine and very fine Few fine Few fine Common fine Common fine and very fine Common fine and very fine Common very fine Common very fine Few fine Very few fine Slightly sticky, nonplastic, friable, slightly hard Slightly sticky, slightly plastic, friable, slightly hard Slightly sticky, slightly plastic, friable, slightly hard Sticky, plastic, firm, hard Very sticky, very plastic, firm, hard
Roots Colour (dry) Structure Horizons depth (cm)
Moderate, subangular blocky, coarse Moderate, subangular blocky, coarse Moderate, subangular blocky, coarse Strong, prismatic, coarse Strong, prismatic, coarse
Stoniness (%) Limit Pores
C-3 Moderately well drained C-2 Gently sloping Ondulating Dry farming Slates and quartzites
LAS CASAS 39 01 21 (N)–03◦ 56 32 (W) 0418432.73 (X)–4319768.58 (Y) Consistence Terric Anthrosol (Eutric, Clayic)/Typic Rhodoxeralf
Stoniness Drainage Slope Topography Vegetation/use Parent material Location/coordinates Soil type FAO/soil taxonomy
Table 1 General description and macro morphological characteristics of two soils investigated.
The general description and the macro morphological characteristics of the two profiles studied are summarised in Table 1. The impact of the addition of sugar foam is shown in the morphology of Profile 1 (Las Casas) with the presence of three Ap horizons (Ap1 , Ap2 and Ap3 ) which reach a depth of 32 cm versus a single Ap horizon in Profile 2 (Almagro) with a depth of 12 cm. The pores, which are related to the hydro-behaviour of the soil, are “few and fine” in the superficial horizons of the first profile versus “common” in the superficial horizon of the non-altered profile where they are also fine (“common fine and few coarse”). The stoniness in the first case is included in class 1 (10% or less). In the second profile, where no human alteration has occurred, the stoniness is class 2, (the minimum value of stoniness of is 25% in the Ap horizon and increasing with a depth up to 50% in 2Bt2 ). The percentages of sand, silt and clay of the horizons and the textural classes obtained from the texture classes diagram (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) are shown in Table 2. It is observed that the texture is different in the superficial horizons of the two profiles: silty in the first profile and sandy clay loam in the second one. However, in the first profile, the texture has been established by touch and, therefore, the percentage distribution of sand, silt, and clay of the horizon is unknown. The moisture retention properties are related to the clay and silt content (Jamison and Kroth, 1957; Abrol et al., 1968; Hollis et al., 1977; Madankumar, 1985; Kironchi et al., 1995; Walczak et al., 2006) and to the sand content (Salter et al., 1966; Madankumar, 1985; Walczak et al., 2006). In this case, texture cannot be used to predict the behaviour of the soil with regard to its moisture content, although Abrol et al. (1968) showed that the silt fraction seems to be the major factor that governs the pore size distribution that has a strong influence on the amount of available water. The mineralogy corresponding to the two profiles is shown in Table 3. For Profile 1, it can be observed that the main component is calcite in the first three horizons (Ap1 –Ap3 : from 85 to 94%, respectively). Quartzite is present in all the samples. In samples Ap1 –Ap3 there is a very low content (≤5%) of alkaline feldspar, as this is a type of plagioclase. In the fraction <2 m, illite and kaolinite appear in low levels in both samples: kaolinite (15–30%) and illite (50–65%). There was an absence of smectite. The result obtained is consistent with the composition of foam waste, which contains a high percentage of calcium carbonate (López et al., 2001; Garrido et al., 2003; Azucarera Ebro, 2005; Villa, 2005). In Profile 2, there was no calcite, quartzite was found in all samples and showed a very high level (78%) of phyllosilicates in the samples from the Ap -type horizons. Williams et al. (1983) showed that the presence of illite and
3. Results and discussion
At the same time, the porous capsules of the tensiometers were submerged in distilled water. Then, the tensiometers were filled with distilled water, weighed and placed in each pot. The procedure consisted of reading the tensiometer twice a day for 30 days and recording the pot-tensiometer weight. The matric potential was represented as a function of the mass moisture of the soil, m = f(w), calculating the moisture content by weight difference when the soil is dried naturally, and the matric potential by a direct reading on the tensiometer (from 0 to −80 kPa). The second type of characteristic curve (drying curve) was carried out in duplicate on the sieved soil from the superficial horizon of each profile following the Richards method (1948) to determine the gravimetric moisture value of the samples as matric potential (1500 kPa, 900 kPa, 300 kPa, 100 kPa, 33 kPa and 10 kPa). Field capacity (FC) was the gravimetric moisture value at −33 kPa and permanent wilting point (PWP) was the gravimetric moisture value at −1500 kPa. Available water retention capacity was calculated by subtraction (AWRC = FC − PWP).
C-1 Few stoniness
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839
◦
1836
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839 Table 2 Particle size distribution and textural class.
Profile 1 Ap1 Ap2 Ap3 2Bw 2Bt Profile 2 Ap 2Bt1 a
% Gravels
% Sand
% Silt
% Clay
Textural classification
5.2 6.2 5.0 12.2 15.5
– – – 65.8 23.9
– – – 11.8 16.2
– – – 22.9 59.9
Silta Silta Silta Sandy clay loam Clay
36.9 43.1
59.3 44.6
19.3 18.0
21.4 37.4
Sandy clay loam Clay loam
Texture resolute by touch.
kaolinite is not strongly associated with moisture characteristics. Ali and Biswas (in Wösten et al., 2001) specified that the proportion of illite had a small effect on the water retained at −1500 kPa (9%) but it was very evident (240%) on water retained at −10 kPa. In this case, there is no illite or kaolinite in the superficial horizons of Profile 1 but their presence is clear in the Ap horizon of Profile 2 (62% illite and 16% kaolinite), therefore a different behaviour between the two profiles can be expected with regard to water retention properties due to this difference (Kironchi et al., 1995). In Table 4, the properties of the soils organic matter, pH, electrical conductivity, calcium carbonate, active lime and iron oxides, are summarised. The calcium carbonate and active lime are common elements in other types of soils from the surrounding areas, but not in the case of Profile 2, which does not show carbonates or active lime. It is known that the calcium carbonate content influences on the soil moisture retention properties (Walczak et al., 2006); McHenry and Rhoades (in Abrol et al., 1968) reported an increase in the field capacity with the addition of calcium carbonate to the soil. Rajkai and Varallyay (in Wösten et al., 2001) found that the calcium carbonate content was the second most important parameter to predict water retention at −1500 kPa. In Profile 1, calcium carbonate significantly increased after the application of sugar foam (from 40.8 to 46.3% in the Ap1 and Ap3 horizons, respectively), which suggests an increase in the moisture retention capacity of the altered soil, as verified in Table 5. The pH values (8.2 in the Ap1 horizon of Profile 1 versus 6.3 in the Ap horizon of Profile 2) are as expected because the application
1837
of this type of waste has been proposed as a valid alternative to the traditional amendments for acid soils (Garrido et al., 2003; Alonso et al., 2006). The electrical conductivity has shown an increase that can be considered slight and does not change the quality of the soil (Madejón et al., 2001; García Navarro et al., 2009). The organic matter content increases in the disturbed soil (3.5% in Ap1 ) and this should help to increase the stability of aggregates, the number and size of the macro-pores and moisture retention properties (Jamison and Kroth, 1957; Hollis et al., 1977; Chaney and Swift, 1984). Hollis et al. (1977) consider that the organic matter is the most influential factor on water retention properties in the soil and Rawls et al. (2003) specify that all the soils show an increase in water retention at high organic carbon values. The normal levels of organic matter in the soil in the area studied do not exceed 2% (in non-disturbed soil, Profile 2, the organic matter is 1.4%). An increase in moisture retention properties in the disturbed soil should be expected (Profile 1). The application of wastes (as sugar foam) increases the content of organic matter in the soil (Madejón et al., 2001; García Navarro et al., 2009), rising aggregation, reducing the bulk density and increasing the water retention capacity (Khaleel et al., 1981). The iron oxides content in the superficial horizons of the Profile 1 studied are zero, so this property does not influence decisively on the moisture retention in this case, although it is known that its presence influences on water retention properties (Williams et al., 1983). The addition of organic amendments such as the sugar foam has significant effects on the structure. It may produce a decrease of bulk density from 5 to 40% and generate increases in porosity between 5 and 45% depending on the proportion and type of amendment (Bronick and Lal, 2005). The maintained application over time increases the macro-porosity that influences biological activity and carbon sequestration (Marinari et al., 2000) and increases the water retention capacity (Ingelmo and Rubio, 2008). Williams et al. (1983) point out that the presence or absence of “pedality” is strongly associated with the soil moisture characteristics without finding a clear link between the shape and size of the aggregates and water retention properties. Grade of structure appears to be a strong predictor of water retention (Pachepski and Rawls, 2003). Furthermore, it is known that the soils change the water retention characteristics when their natural structure is destroyed (Fernández-Gálvez and Barahona, 2005). In this case, the
Table 3 Mineralogy of semi-quantitative values for the fraction less than 2 mm and 2 m. Calcite Profile 1 Ap1 Ap2 Ap3 2Bw 2Bt Profile 2 Ap 2Bt1
Quartz
Feldspar
Phyllosilicate
Kaolinite
Illite
Smectite
85 92 94 0 5
5 8 6 20 5
5 0 0 0 10
5 0 0 80 80
15 30
65 50
0 0
0 0
18 18
0 0
78 70
16 18
62 52
0 0
Table 4 Characteristics of organic matter (OM, %), pH, electrical conductivity (EC, dS/m), CaCO3 (%), active lime (AL, %) and Fe2 O3 (%) of the studied profiles.
Profile 1 Ap1 Ap2 Ap3 2Bw 2Bt Profile 2 Ap 2Bt1
OM (%)
pH
EC (dS/m)
CaCO3 (%)
AL (%)
Fe2 O3 (%)
3.5 3.6 4.1 1.3 1.0
8.2 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.2
0.33 0.26 0.31 0.29 0.36
40.8 43.1 46.3 3.9 5.4
13.6 17.5 17.1 0.5 2.8
– – – 2.4 5.3
1.4 0.4
6.3 6.6
0.25 0.33
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
2.08 2.8
1838
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839
Water content (%)
Table 5 Bulk density (, g cm−3 ), gravimetric moisture at field capacity (FC, %), gravimetric moisture in the permanent wilting point (PWP, %) and available water retention capacity (AWRC, %). Permanent wilting point (%)
49
14.5
12
8.0
Available water retention capacity (%)
34.5 4
superficial horizons of the Profile 1 show a clear structure (moderate, sub-angular blocky, coarse) the same as the Ap horizon of the Profile 2 (moderate, polyhedron blocky, medium), therefore it cannot mean that a variation in the properties associated with water retention are directly related to the structure. Table 5 shows data for the bulk density, gravimetric moisture at field capacity (FC), gravimetric moisture in the permanent wilting point (PWP) and available water retention capacity (AWRC) for the soils of the superficial horizons of the profiles studied. The bulk density of the superficial horizon of Profile 1 stands out at 0.79 g cm −3 . It is particularly low against the bulk density of horizon A (Profile 2), which takes the value of 1.19 g cm −3 . These values are consistent with those reported by different authors regarding to the bulk density of disturbed soils due to the addition of waste since the bulk density reduces because of the application of organic matter to the soil (Khaleel et al., 1981; Haynes and Naidu, 1998). In Profile 1 it can be observed higher available water retention capacity than in Profile 2 (34.5% against 4%). The addition of sugar foam in the Las Casas profile has changed the properties of the natural soil and has increased the soil moisture retention capacity of the disturbed profile. Several researchers have pointed out the increase of accumulated water in the soil when the application of waste is increased (Khaleel et al., 1981). The values obtained for the parameters related to the water retention are a consequence of the increase of the calcium carbonate content, the increase of organic matter (Walczak et al., 2006) and the reduction of the bulk density (Reeve et al., 1973; Madankumar, 1985; Horn et al., 1994; Walczak et al., 2006). The distribution of the pore size changes thereby increasing the relative number of small pores (Khaleel et al., 1981). The texture also explains this fact since Abrol et al. (1968) showed that the percentage of silt in the soil was the factor that governed the distribution of the pore size by which it had a strong influence on the increase of AWRC. Fig. 1 shows the water retention curves of the superficial horizons from the studied soils, carried out on sieved soils on Richards’s pressure plates. As can be observed, the curve of Profile 1 (with sugar foam) is displaced towards the right since the moisture content of this soil at any pressure is higher than that of Profile 2. This is consistent with the results of texture, calcium carbonate, bulk density, clay mineralogy and organic matter. In Profile 1 (curve on the right) the potential fall from 0 to −200 kPa is linked by a substantial reduction in the soil water content, a fact which does not occur in Profile 2. The amendment with sugar foam influences the porosity associated with the structure at low water potentials, close to the field capacity, and has less influence on pores for high water potentials, close to the permanent wilting point. In spite of this, the soil that has been disturbed always has higher moisture content at any of the matric potentials compared to the natural one. Fig. 2 shows the water retention curves of the superficial horizons from the soils carried out with tensiometers (non-sieved samples and with m up to −80 kPa). These curves are particularly interesting from an agronomic point of view since they show the true available water for crops. Again, it is observed how the soil
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
-200
Matric potencial (kPa)
Profile 1 0.79 Ap1 Profile 2 1.19 Ap
Field capacity (%)
-400 -600 -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600
Fig. 1. Water retention curves of soil in Profile 1 (Las Casas, discontinuous line, on the right) and in Profile 2 (Almagro, continuous line, on the left).
Water content (%) 0,0 0
lMatric potencial (kPa)
Bulk density (g cm−3 )
0,0 0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
-10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90
Fig. 2. Water retention curves of soil in Profile 1 (Las Casas, , on the right) and in Profile 2 (Almagro, , on the left) carried out with tensiometers on non-sieved samples.
moisture content of Profile 1, altered by the addition of sugar foam waste, is higher than that of Profile 2 at any potential. The increase of organic matter which means the incorporation of waste makes the structure-associated porosity increase (Walczak et al., 2006), the bulk density reduce, and the moisture retention properties are changed (Khaleel et al., 1981; Horn et al., 1994; Haynes and Naidu, 1998). Based on these data, the sugar foam can be considered as an effective alternative to improve the agricultural conditions of the soils. 4. Conclusions The sugar foam applied to the red soils over an extended period of time (>25 years) changes their physical and chemical properties. Regarding to the chemical properties, an increase in the presence of organic matter and calcium carbonate is noted. The pH increases but the electrical conductivity does not increase significantly. With regard to the physical properties, the depth of horizon A increases, the stoniness reduces, the structure is well developed, the texture becomes finer and the bulk density decreases. Some of these characteristics are in themselves positive for crops and others influence the alteration of the soil moisture retention properties. The addition of sugar foam means that the soil has higher moisture content at any matric potential and, therefore, more available water retention capacity for crops.
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839
Agro-industrial by-products such as sugar foam may be considered as effective alternatives to improve soil quality in agriculture and, therefore, for sustainable use. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Mr. Alfonso Artigao Ramírez and ˜ Sahuquillo from the Department of Vegetable Mr. José María Núnez Production and Agrarian Technology at the University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain, for their contribution. References Abrol, I.P., Khosla, B.K., Bhumbla, D.R., 1968. Relationship of texture to some important soil moisture constants. Geoderma 2, 33–39. Alonso, F.P., Arias, J.S., Fernández, R.O., Fernandez, P.G., Serrano, R.E., 2006. Agronomic implications of the supply of lime and gypsum by-products to palexerults from western Spain. Soil Science 171 (1), 65–81. Anne, A., 1945. Sur le dosage rapid du carbone organique de sols. Annals of Agronomy 2, 161–172. Ebro, 2005. Informe monográfico 1: CarboAzucarera Dirección agrícola del Departamento de Agronomía. cal, http://www.aeasa.com/agricola/pdf/carbocal.pdf. Bronick, C., Lal, R., 2005. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124, 3–22. Chaney, K., Swift, R.S., 1984. The influence of organic matter on aggregate stability in some British soils. Journal of Soil Sciences 35, 415–420. Drouineau, G., 1942. Dosage rapide du calcaire actif de sols. Annals of Agronomy 12, 441–450. European Commission, 2005. Waste generated and treated in Europe. Data http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY OFFPUB/KS-69-051995–2003. 755/EN/KS-69-05-755-EN.PDF (last accessed: 1 February 2011). European Communities, 2000. La Unión Europea apuesta por la gestión de residuos. Oficina de Publicaciones Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/publications/pdf/eufocus es.pdf (last accessed: 1 February 2011). FAO, 2006. Guidelines for Soil Description, 4th ed. AO/UNESCO, Rome. FAO ISRIC ISSS, 2006. World reference base for soil resources. A framework international classification, correlation and communication. World Soil Resources Report 103. FAO, Rome, 132 pp. Fernández-Gálvez, J., Barahona, E., 2005. Changes in soil water retention due to soil kneading. Agricultural Water Management 76, 23–61. García Navarro, F., Amorós, J.A., Sánchez, C., Bravo, S., Márquez, E., Jiménez-Ballesta, R., 2009. Application of sugar foam to red soils in a semiarid Mediterranean environment. Environmental Earth Sciences 59, 603–611. Garrido, F., Illera, V., Vizcaíno, C., García-González, M.T., 2003. Evaluation of industrial by-products as soil acidity amendments: chemical and mineralogical implications. European Journal of Soil Science 54, 411–422. Gee, G.W., Bauder, J.W., 1986. Particle-size analysis. In: Klute A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph No. 9, ASA-SSSA, Madison, pp. 383–411. Haynes, R.J., Naidu, R., 1998. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 51, 123–137. Hollis, J.M., Jones, R.J.A., Palmer, R.C., 1977. The effects of organic matter and particle size on the water-retention properties of some soils in the West Midlands of England. Geoderma 17, 225–238. Horn, R., Taubner, H., Wuttke, M., Baumgartl, T., 1994. Soil physical properties related to soil structure. Soil and Tillage Research 30, 187–216. Ingelmo, F., Rubio, J.L., 2008. Efecto de la aplicación del compost sobre las propiedades físicas y químicas del suelo. In: Compostaje, Moreno, J., Moral, R. (Eds.), Ediciones Mundi-Prensa, Madrid, pp. 305–328. Jamison, V.C., Kroth, E.M., 1957. Available moisture storage capacity in relation to textural composition and organic matter content for several Missouri soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 22 (3), 189–192.
1839
Jiménez-Ballesta, R., Vizaíno, C., 1978. Características mineralógicas de la fracción arcilla en algunos suelos del contacto Paleozoico-Mioceno en Montes-Islas (Toledo). Revista Iberoamericana de Cristalografía y Mineralogía Metalogenética 1, 117–223. Jiménez-Moraza, C., Iglesias, N., Palencia, I., 2006. Application of sugar foam to a pyrite-contaminated soil. Minerals Engineering 19, 399–406. Juárez, M., Sánchez, J., Sánchez, A., 2006. Química del suelo y medio ambiente. Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain. Juhász, C.E.P., Cooper, M., Ribeiro, P., Oppitz, A., Shiso, R., 2007. Savanna woodland soil micromorphology related to water retention. Scientia Agricola 64 (4), 344–354. Khaleel, R., Reddy, K., Overcash, M.R., 1981. Changes in soil physical properties due to organic waste applications: a review. Journal Environmental Quality 10 (2), 133–141. Kironchi, G., Kinyali, S.M., Mbuvi, J.P., 1995. Environmental influence on water characteristics of soils in two semi-arid catchments in Laikipia, Kenia. African Crop Science Journal 3 (4), 479–486. López, A., Vidal, M., Blázquez, R., Urbano, P., 2001. Differential effects of lime and sugar foam on the mineral composition and forage productivity of an acid soil. Agrochimica 45 (3–4), 89–98. Madankumar, N., 1985. Prediction of soil moisture characteristics from mechanical analysis and bulk density data. Agricultural Water Management 10, 305–312. Madejón, E., Lopez, R., Murillo, J.M., Cabrera, F., 2001. Agricultural use of three (sugarbeet) vinasse composts: effect on crops and chemical properties of a Cambisol soil in the Guadalquivir river valley (SW Spain). Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 84, 53–65. Marinari, S., Masciandaro, G., Ceccanti, B., Grego, S., 2000. Influence of organic and mineral fertilisers on soil biological and physical properties. Bioresource Technology 72, 9–17. Moore, D.M., Reynolds, R.C.J., 1989. X-Ray Diffraction and the Identification and Analysis of Clay Minerals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 332 pp. Nimmo, J.R., 1997. Modeling structural influences on soil water retention. Soil Science Society of American Journal 61, 712–719. Pachepski, Y., Rawls, W., 2003. Soil structure and pedotransfer functions. European Journal of Soil Science 54, 443–451. Porta, J., 1986. Técnicas y experimentos en Edafología. Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros ˜ Barcelona, Spain. Agrónomos de Cataluna, Porta, J., López-Acevedo, Vidal, M., Roquero, C., 1999. Edafología para la agricultura y el medio ambiente, Mundiprensa, Madrid, Spain. Rawls, W.J., Pachepsky, Y.A., Ritchie, J.C., Sobecki, T.M., Bloodworth, H., 2003. Effect of soil carbon on soil water retention. Geoderma 116, 61–76. Reeve, M.J., Smith, P.D., Thomasson, J., 1973. The effect of density on water retention properties of field soils. European Journal of Soil Science 24 (3), 355–367. Richards, L.A., 1948. Porous plate apparatus for measuring moisture retention and transmission by soil. Soil Science 66, 105–110. Salter, P.J., Berry, G., Williams, J.B., 1966. The influence of texture on the moisture characteristics of soils. European. Journal of soil Science 17 (1), 93–98. SCS-USDA, 1972. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 1. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples. US Govt. Printing Office, Washington. Sikora, L.J., Azad, M.I., 1993. Effect of compost-fertilizer combinations on wheat yields. Compost Science & Utilization 1, 93–96. Soil Survey Staff, 2006. Key to Soil Taxonomy, 10th ed. USDA-NCRS. Tejada, M., González, J.L., 2003. Application of a by-product of the two-step olive oil mill process on rice yield. Agrochimica 47, 94–102. Vidal, M., Garzon, E., Garcia, V., Villa, E., 2006. Differentiating the amending effects of calcareous materials applied to acid soils by use of optimal scaling procedures. Agrochimica 50 (3–4), 132–147. Villa, E., 2005. Producción de biomasa en suelos ácidos corregidos con enmiendas calizas. Vida Rural 221, 58–60. ´ C., Fernandez, E., Arrue, J.L., 2006. Modeling of Walczak, R.T., Moreno, F., Sławinski, soil water retention curve using soil solid phase parameters. Journal of Hydrology 329 (3–4), 527–533. Williams, J., Prebble, R.E., Williams, W.T., Hignett, C.T., 1983. The influence of texture, structure and clay mineralogy on the soil moisture characteristic. Australian Journal of Soil Research 21, 15–32. Wösten, J.H.M., Pachepsky, Y.A., Rawls, W.J., 2001. Pedotransfer functions: bridging the gap between available basic soil data and missing soil hydraulic characteristics. Journal of Hydrology 251, 123–150.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
Changes in water retention properties due to the application of sugar foam in red soils C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes a,∗ , J.A. Amorós Ortíz-Villajos a , F.J. García Navarro a , S. Bravo Martín-Consuegra a , C. Sánchez Jiménez b , D. Chocano Eteson a , R. Jiménez-Ballesta c a Escuela Universitaria de Ingeniería Técnica Agrícola, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (School of Technical Agricultural Engineering. University of Castilla-La Mancha), Ronda de Calatrava, 7, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain b Unidad de Suelos, Instituto de Tecnología Química y Medioambiental, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain c Departamento de Geología y Geoquímica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Ciudad Real, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 March 2011 Accepted 12 June 2011 Available online 22 July 2011 Keywords: Water retention Sugar waste Soil physical properties Soil water characteristic curve Red soils
a b s t r a c t This work describes the influence of the application of sugar foam (an organic residue from sugar beet industry) on water retention properties, over an extended period of time (>25 years), in two red soils in the La Mancha region of Spain. The properties of gravimetric moisture at field capacity, gravimetric moisture in the permanent wilting point and available water retention capacity both in the original soil – without the addition of sugar foam – and in the soil affected by the addition of sugar foam are compared. For this purpose, the profiles are characterised macro morphologically. Chemical, physical–chemical and mineralogical parameters are determined, in addition to determining the water retention curves of each soil with tensiometers and Richards pressure plates. The sugar foam applied to the soil altered its physical and chemical properties. An increase in contents of organic matter (3.5% versus 1.4%), calcium carbonate (40.8% versus 0%) and pH (8.2 versus 6.3) are observed in the superficial horizon of the studied soils, although there is no such significant increase in electrical conductivity (0.33 dS/m versus 0.25 dS/m). With regard to the physical properties, the depth of horizon A increases (32 cm versus 12 cm), the stoniness reduces (5% versus 25%), the structure is well developed, due to the texture becomes finer (silty versus sandy clay loam), and, finally, the bulk density reduces (0.79 g cm−3 versus 1.19 g cm−3 ). The gravimetric moisture at field capacity was 49% in the soil altered with sugar foam, versus 12% in the non-altered soil; the gravimetric moisture in the permanent wilting point was 14.5% versus 8% and the available water retention capacity was 34.5% and 4%, respectively. It can be concluded that the increase of calcium carbonate, organic matter and the reduction of bulk density are the most influential factors in this process. The scientific novelty of this work is that the hydro-behaviour of the soil due to the addition of sugar foam improves the characteristic values of moisture and, therefore, the agronomical qualities of the soil. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Water retention is a hydro physical property of soil that can be described by the dependence between soil water content and soil water potential (Walczak et al., 2006). The fact that two soils have the same matric potential does not mean that they possess the same amount of water, therefore not all this water is available for crops, and what is interesting from the agronomical point of view is how much water could be used for plants. A common requirement is to know this relationship in nonsaturated soil through the water retention curve (or soil water
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 926295300; fax: +34 926295351. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes). 0378-3774/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2011.06.008
characteristic curve). Normally this curve represents the potential as a function of the mass or volumetric moisture of the soil, and, at other times, the volumetric moisture of the soil as a function of the matric potential. The water retention curve can be constructed from experimental measures or from empirical equations known as pedotransfer functions (Wösten et al., 2001). The main properties of the soil that influence the water retention curves are texture and structure (Nimmo, 1997). At high potential values, the amount of water retained depends on the capillary effect and on the distribution of pore size; which it is greatly affected by the structure of the soil (Kironchi et al., 1995; Pachepski and Rawls, 2003; Juárez et al., 2006; Juhász et al., 2007). On the other hand, at low potential values, retention is due to the increase in absorption, more influenced by texture and specific surface of the soil materials (Kironchi et al., 1995; Juárez et al., 2006; Nimmo,
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839
1997). In general, the higher content in clay means the more water retention at a given potential. Williams et al. (1983) showed that the factors influencing water retention properties are the distribution of the particle size, the clay mineralogy, the content in organic matter and the bulk density of the soil, which are properties related to the aforementioned texture and structure. The type of clay was also highlighted as an important factor in water retention by Kironchi et al. in 1995. The effect of the organic matter was studied by Hollis et al. (1977) and by Rawls et al. (2003) and the influence of the bulk density was also highlighted previously by Reeve et al. (1973) who showed that, for horizon A, the volumetric moisture and available water increased with the reduction of bulk density. In addition to the aforementioned properties, Abrol et al. (1968) stated that the calcium carbonate content, particularly present in soils in arid and semi-arid areas, should be taken into account when available water values are estimated from textural considerations. Walczak et al. (2006) considered this parameter as well (2006). Sugar foam is a relatively abundant waste that has undergone a significant increase in areas with a developed sugar extraction industry. The application of this type of organic waste to the soil is a widespread practice, especially in the last 20 or 30 years due to the improvements observed in some soil properties (Sikora and Azad, 1993) and the increase in the quality and quantity of crops (Tejada and González, 2003; Villa, 2005). This addition may affect some of the soil characteristics. Therefore, there has been research on the influence on the chemical properties of soils (López et al., 2001; Madejón et al., 2001; Garrido et al., 2003; Alonso et al., 2006; Vidal et al., 2006) and, lately, on red soils (García Navarro et al., 2009). The possible change of the physical properties related to the water retention capacity, because of the application of this waste, has not been assessed although it is known that these properties are particularly important for agricultural soils. It is estimated that the total amount of waste generated every year (not including waste from agriculture, forests, mines, quarries, construction and some others), in the European Union-25, is around 1300 million tonnes (European Commission, 2005). The European Union in its “Waste Management Strategy” points out, as one of its objectives, that it is necessary to promote sustainable and rational waste management, without it being a threat to public health and the environment. The European strategy sets out a hierarchical structuring of the different management alternatives, among which it is worth citing non-hazardous waste disposal (European Communities, 2000). Sugar foam is the residue obtained from the manufacture of sugar which is produced after the beet juice is purified by flocculation of colloidal matter with a calcium hydroxide solution (Ca(OH)2 ), followed by a treatment with CO2 . It is always rich in organic matter (around 7%) and calcium carbonate (approximately 40%) (Azucarera Ebro, 2005; Villa, 2005; Jiménez-Moraza et al., 2006). The Spanish annual production of this type of waste ranges from 60 to 70 million tonnes, 50% of which is dry matter. Nonetheless, a low percentage is added to the soil in contrast to other European countries that apply almost their entire production to cultivated soils (Jiménez-Moraza et al., 2006). The water retention properties in two red soils typical of the La Mancha region (Spain) are compared in this work: a natural red soil and other similar with the addition of sugar foam. These soils are not selected only for their agronomic value, but also for their palaeoclimatic and palaeopedological importance as well as their environmental interest (Jiménez-Ballesta and Vizaíno, 1978). The effect is studied after having applied sugar foam for approximately 25 years and the physical-chemical parameters that influence on soil water retention properties are analysed in both soils.
1835
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area and sampling procedure The work was carried out on two similar red soils (about 30 km from each other) from the La Mancha region in Castilla-La Mancha, Central Spain. The soils are dedicated to dry farming with similar plough management. They are typical soils from this semi-arid Mediterranean region that, derived from Ordovician-Silurian rocks, constitute around 17% of the soils in Castilla-La Mancha. The area has a Xeric moisture regime and a Mesic temperature regime (Soil Survey Staff, 2006). In the Profile 1 soil (in Las Casas, Ciudad Real, Castilla-La Mancha), foam waste from a sugar industry had been deposited for approximately 25 years (20–40 t/ha/year). The sugar foam was provided by the Spanish producer Azucarera Ebro S.L. that marketed it as a mineral amendment with the name Carbocal (Azucarera Ebro, 2005). In the other soil, Profile 2 (Almagro, Ciudad Real, Castilla-La Mancha), a natural soil, there was no sugar foam waste addition during the same period. According to the Soil Taxonomy, the two soil profiles were classified as Typic Rhodoxeralf (Soil Survey Staff, 2006). The soils were Terric Anthrosol (Eutric, Clayic) in the case of Profile 1 and Haplic Luvisol (Ruptic, Rhodic) in the case of Profile 2, in accordance with FAO-ISRIC-ISSS (2006). The two profiles were described with FAO guidelines (2006) and, subsequently, samples were collected from each horizon for both profiles which were air dried and sieved (<2 mm) to carry out the analysis. A sample of around 6 kg was taken from the superficial horizon for each profile that was used, without being sieved, to determine the water retention curve with tensiometer. Another similar sample, after being sieved (<2 mm), was used to determine the water retention curve with Richards plates (1948). To determine the bulk density samples were taken in these horizons with cylinders of 100 cm3 . 2.2. Analytical methods The analytical determinations were carried out according to SCS-USDA (1972). In particular, the soil texture was determined using the hydrometer method (Gee and Bauder, 1986) and the determination of calcium carbonate was carried out with a calcimeter. The active calcium carbonate equivalent or “active lime” was determined with NH4 -oxalate as Drouineau described (1942). The organic matter was determined by potassium dichromate oxidation and titration of dichromate remaining with ammonium ferrous(II) sulphate (Anne, 1945). The bulk density for horizon A was determined by the cylinder method (Porta et al., 1999). All the samples were extracted and analysed in triplicate. The clay mineralogical analysis was carried out with X-ray diffraction techniques according to Moore and Reynolds (1989). A chemical treatment of the samples with ethylene glycol was carried out to detect expandable minerals, and with dimethyl sulfoxide to differentiate chlorite and kaolinite. A thermal treatment was also carried out at 550 ◦ C for 2 h. The samples were analysed through a Cu K␣ source (Philips-Panalytical X-PERT diffractometer), with a graphite monochrometer of 40 kV and 40 mA and a sensitivity of 2 × 103 cps. The measuring ranges were 2–75◦ and 2–50◦ 2, the goniometer speed was 0.04 and 0.05◦ 2/s with a time constant of 0.4 to 1 s for the random powder and glass slides, respectively. Two types of moisture characteristic curves were calculated: the first type (drying curve) was carried out in duplicate on the soil from the superficial horizon of each profile without sieving. Samples were oven dried at 105 ◦ C (Porta, 1986) to constant weight. For each sample, two pots were filled with the dry soil in which all the elements, except the soil, had previously been weighed. Each sample of soil was saturated with water and left to drain for 48 h.
25 30 50 – Gradual and irregular Net and plane Net and irregular – Common fine and few coarse Few coarse and fine Coarse – Common fine and medium Few medium None – Sticky, plastic, friable and soft Sticky, plastic, firm, hard – –
Pores Roots Consistence
5 YR 4/6 2.5 YR 5/6 2.5 YR 4/8 – Ap (0–12) Bt1 (12–45) 2Bt2 (45–70) R (>96)
Structure Colour (dry) Horizons depth (cm)
Quartzites ALMAGRO 38◦ 55 56.0 (N)–03◦ 44 45.0 (W)419200 (X)–4309668 (Y) Haplic Luvisol (Ruptic, Rhodic)/Typic Rhodoxeralf
Moderate, polyhedron blocky, medium Strong, angular blocky, coarse – –
Stoniness (%) Limit
C-2 Common stoniness C-4 Well drained C-3 Sloping Hillside Dry farming
Stoniness Drainage Slope Topography Vegetation/use Parent material Location/coordinates
10 YR 7/3 10 Y 7/2 10 Y 7/2 7.5 YR 8/3 10 R 4/6 Ap1 (0–12) Ap2 (12–20) Ap3 (20–32) 2Bw (32–60) 2Bt (60–110)
Soil type FAO/soil taxonomy
Gradual and wavy 5 Abrupt and smooth 2 Abrupt and smooth 2 Gradual and irregular 2 – 10 Few fine and very fine Few fine Few fine Common fine Common fine and very fine Common fine and very fine Common very fine Common very fine Few fine Very few fine Slightly sticky, nonplastic, friable, slightly hard Slightly sticky, slightly plastic, friable, slightly hard Slightly sticky, slightly plastic, friable, slightly hard Sticky, plastic, firm, hard Very sticky, very plastic, firm, hard
Roots Colour (dry) Structure Horizons depth (cm)
Moderate, subangular blocky, coarse Moderate, subangular blocky, coarse Moderate, subangular blocky, coarse Strong, prismatic, coarse Strong, prismatic, coarse
Stoniness (%) Limit Pores
C-3 Moderately well drained C-2 Gently sloping Ondulating Dry farming Slates and quartzites
LAS CASAS 39 01 21 (N)–03◦ 56 32 (W) 0418432.73 (X)–4319768.58 (Y) Consistence Terric Anthrosol (Eutric, Clayic)/Typic Rhodoxeralf
Stoniness Drainage Slope Topography Vegetation/use Parent material Location/coordinates Soil type FAO/soil taxonomy
Table 1 General description and macro morphological characteristics of two soils investigated.
The general description and the macro morphological characteristics of the two profiles studied are summarised in Table 1. The impact of the addition of sugar foam is shown in the morphology of Profile 1 (Las Casas) with the presence of three Ap horizons (Ap1 , Ap2 and Ap3 ) which reach a depth of 32 cm versus a single Ap horizon in Profile 2 (Almagro) with a depth of 12 cm. The pores, which are related to the hydro-behaviour of the soil, are “few and fine” in the superficial horizons of the first profile versus “common” in the superficial horizon of the non-altered profile where they are also fine (“common fine and few coarse”). The stoniness in the first case is included in class 1 (10% or less). In the second profile, where no human alteration has occurred, the stoniness is class 2, (the minimum value of stoniness of is 25% in the Ap horizon and increasing with a depth up to 50% in 2Bt2 ). The percentages of sand, silt and clay of the horizons and the textural classes obtained from the texture classes diagram (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) are shown in Table 2. It is observed that the texture is different in the superficial horizons of the two profiles: silty in the first profile and sandy clay loam in the second one. However, in the first profile, the texture has been established by touch and, therefore, the percentage distribution of sand, silt, and clay of the horizon is unknown. The moisture retention properties are related to the clay and silt content (Jamison and Kroth, 1957; Abrol et al., 1968; Hollis et al., 1977; Madankumar, 1985; Kironchi et al., 1995; Walczak et al., 2006) and to the sand content (Salter et al., 1966; Madankumar, 1985; Walczak et al., 2006). In this case, texture cannot be used to predict the behaviour of the soil with regard to its moisture content, although Abrol et al. (1968) showed that the silt fraction seems to be the major factor that governs the pore size distribution that has a strong influence on the amount of available water. The mineralogy corresponding to the two profiles is shown in Table 3. For Profile 1, it can be observed that the main component is calcite in the first three horizons (Ap1 –Ap3 : from 85 to 94%, respectively). Quartzite is present in all the samples. In samples Ap1 –Ap3 there is a very low content (≤5%) of alkaline feldspar, as this is a type of plagioclase. In the fraction <2 m, illite and kaolinite appear in low levels in both samples: kaolinite (15–30%) and illite (50–65%). There was an absence of smectite. The result obtained is consistent with the composition of foam waste, which contains a high percentage of calcium carbonate (López et al., 2001; Garrido et al., 2003; Azucarera Ebro, 2005; Villa, 2005). In Profile 2, there was no calcite, quartzite was found in all samples and showed a very high level (78%) of phyllosilicates in the samples from the Ap -type horizons. Williams et al. (1983) showed that the presence of illite and
3. Results and discussion
At the same time, the porous capsules of the tensiometers were submerged in distilled water. Then, the tensiometers were filled with distilled water, weighed and placed in each pot. The procedure consisted of reading the tensiometer twice a day for 30 days and recording the pot-tensiometer weight. The matric potential was represented as a function of the mass moisture of the soil, m = f(w), calculating the moisture content by weight difference when the soil is dried naturally, and the matric potential by a direct reading on the tensiometer (from 0 to −80 kPa). The second type of characteristic curve (drying curve) was carried out in duplicate on the sieved soil from the superficial horizon of each profile following the Richards method (1948) to determine the gravimetric moisture value of the samples as matric potential (1500 kPa, 900 kPa, 300 kPa, 100 kPa, 33 kPa and 10 kPa). Field capacity (FC) was the gravimetric moisture value at −33 kPa and permanent wilting point (PWP) was the gravimetric moisture value at −1500 kPa. Available water retention capacity was calculated by subtraction (AWRC = FC − PWP).
C-1 Few stoniness
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839
◦
1836
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839 Table 2 Particle size distribution and textural class.
Profile 1 Ap1 Ap2 Ap3 2Bw 2Bt Profile 2 Ap 2Bt1 a
% Gravels
% Sand
% Silt
% Clay
Textural classification
5.2 6.2 5.0 12.2 15.5
– – – 65.8 23.9
– – – 11.8 16.2
– – – 22.9 59.9
Silta Silta Silta Sandy clay loam Clay
36.9 43.1
59.3 44.6
19.3 18.0
21.4 37.4
Sandy clay loam Clay loam
Texture resolute by touch.
kaolinite is not strongly associated with moisture characteristics. Ali and Biswas (in Wösten et al., 2001) specified that the proportion of illite had a small effect on the water retained at −1500 kPa (9%) but it was very evident (240%) on water retained at −10 kPa. In this case, there is no illite or kaolinite in the superficial horizons of Profile 1 but their presence is clear in the Ap horizon of Profile 2 (62% illite and 16% kaolinite), therefore a different behaviour between the two profiles can be expected with regard to water retention properties due to this difference (Kironchi et al., 1995). In Table 4, the properties of the soils organic matter, pH, electrical conductivity, calcium carbonate, active lime and iron oxides, are summarised. The calcium carbonate and active lime are common elements in other types of soils from the surrounding areas, but not in the case of Profile 2, which does not show carbonates or active lime. It is known that the calcium carbonate content influences on the soil moisture retention properties (Walczak et al., 2006); McHenry and Rhoades (in Abrol et al., 1968) reported an increase in the field capacity with the addition of calcium carbonate to the soil. Rajkai and Varallyay (in Wösten et al., 2001) found that the calcium carbonate content was the second most important parameter to predict water retention at −1500 kPa. In Profile 1, calcium carbonate significantly increased after the application of sugar foam (from 40.8 to 46.3% in the Ap1 and Ap3 horizons, respectively), which suggests an increase in the moisture retention capacity of the altered soil, as verified in Table 5. The pH values (8.2 in the Ap1 horizon of Profile 1 versus 6.3 in the Ap horizon of Profile 2) are as expected because the application
1837
of this type of waste has been proposed as a valid alternative to the traditional amendments for acid soils (Garrido et al., 2003; Alonso et al., 2006). The electrical conductivity has shown an increase that can be considered slight and does not change the quality of the soil (Madejón et al., 2001; García Navarro et al., 2009). The organic matter content increases in the disturbed soil (3.5% in Ap1 ) and this should help to increase the stability of aggregates, the number and size of the macro-pores and moisture retention properties (Jamison and Kroth, 1957; Hollis et al., 1977; Chaney and Swift, 1984). Hollis et al. (1977) consider that the organic matter is the most influential factor on water retention properties in the soil and Rawls et al. (2003) specify that all the soils show an increase in water retention at high organic carbon values. The normal levels of organic matter in the soil in the area studied do not exceed 2% (in non-disturbed soil, Profile 2, the organic matter is 1.4%). An increase in moisture retention properties in the disturbed soil should be expected (Profile 1). The application of wastes (as sugar foam) increases the content of organic matter in the soil (Madejón et al., 2001; García Navarro et al., 2009), rising aggregation, reducing the bulk density and increasing the water retention capacity (Khaleel et al., 1981). The iron oxides content in the superficial horizons of the Profile 1 studied are zero, so this property does not influence decisively on the moisture retention in this case, although it is known that its presence influences on water retention properties (Williams et al., 1983). The addition of organic amendments such as the sugar foam has significant effects on the structure. It may produce a decrease of bulk density from 5 to 40% and generate increases in porosity between 5 and 45% depending on the proportion and type of amendment (Bronick and Lal, 2005). The maintained application over time increases the macro-porosity that influences biological activity and carbon sequestration (Marinari et al., 2000) and increases the water retention capacity (Ingelmo and Rubio, 2008). Williams et al. (1983) point out that the presence or absence of “pedality” is strongly associated with the soil moisture characteristics without finding a clear link between the shape and size of the aggregates and water retention properties. Grade of structure appears to be a strong predictor of water retention (Pachepski and Rawls, 2003). Furthermore, it is known that the soils change the water retention characteristics when their natural structure is destroyed (Fernández-Gálvez and Barahona, 2005). In this case, the
Table 3 Mineralogy of semi-quantitative values for the fraction less than 2 mm and 2 m. Calcite Profile 1 Ap1 Ap2 Ap3 2Bw 2Bt Profile 2 Ap 2Bt1
Quartz
Feldspar
Phyllosilicate
Kaolinite
Illite
Smectite
85 92 94 0 5
5 8 6 20 5
5 0 0 0 10
5 0 0 80 80
15 30
65 50
0 0
0 0
18 18
0 0
78 70
16 18
62 52
0 0
Table 4 Characteristics of organic matter (OM, %), pH, electrical conductivity (EC, dS/m), CaCO3 (%), active lime (AL, %) and Fe2 O3 (%) of the studied profiles.
Profile 1 Ap1 Ap2 Ap3 2Bw 2Bt Profile 2 Ap 2Bt1
OM (%)
pH
EC (dS/m)
CaCO3 (%)
AL (%)
Fe2 O3 (%)
3.5 3.6 4.1 1.3 1.0
8.2 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.2
0.33 0.26 0.31 0.29 0.36
40.8 43.1 46.3 3.9 5.4
13.6 17.5 17.1 0.5 2.8
– – – 2.4 5.3
1.4 0.4
6.3 6.6
0.25 0.33
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
2.08 2.8
1838
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839
Water content (%)
Table 5 Bulk density (, g cm−3 ), gravimetric moisture at field capacity (FC, %), gravimetric moisture in the permanent wilting point (PWP, %) and available water retention capacity (AWRC, %). Permanent wilting point (%)
49
14.5
12
8.0
Available water retention capacity (%)
34.5 4
superficial horizons of the Profile 1 show a clear structure (moderate, sub-angular blocky, coarse) the same as the Ap horizon of the Profile 2 (moderate, polyhedron blocky, medium), therefore it cannot mean that a variation in the properties associated with water retention are directly related to the structure. Table 5 shows data for the bulk density, gravimetric moisture at field capacity (FC), gravimetric moisture in the permanent wilting point (PWP) and available water retention capacity (AWRC) for the soils of the superficial horizons of the profiles studied. The bulk density of the superficial horizon of Profile 1 stands out at 0.79 g cm −3 . It is particularly low against the bulk density of horizon A (Profile 2), which takes the value of 1.19 g cm −3 . These values are consistent with those reported by different authors regarding to the bulk density of disturbed soils due to the addition of waste since the bulk density reduces because of the application of organic matter to the soil (Khaleel et al., 1981; Haynes and Naidu, 1998). In Profile 1 it can be observed higher available water retention capacity than in Profile 2 (34.5% against 4%). The addition of sugar foam in the Las Casas profile has changed the properties of the natural soil and has increased the soil moisture retention capacity of the disturbed profile. Several researchers have pointed out the increase of accumulated water in the soil when the application of waste is increased (Khaleel et al., 1981). The values obtained for the parameters related to the water retention are a consequence of the increase of the calcium carbonate content, the increase of organic matter (Walczak et al., 2006) and the reduction of the bulk density (Reeve et al., 1973; Madankumar, 1985; Horn et al., 1994; Walczak et al., 2006). The distribution of the pore size changes thereby increasing the relative number of small pores (Khaleel et al., 1981). The texture also explains this fact since Abrol et al. (1968) showed that the percentage of silt in the soil was the factor that governed the distribution of the pore size by which it had a strong influence on the increase of AWRC. Fig. 1 shows the water retention curves of the superficial horizons from the studied soils, carried out on sieved soils on Richards’s pressure plates. As can be observed, the curve of Profile 1 (with sugar foam) is displaced towards the right since the moisture content of this soil at any pressure is higher than that of Profile 2. This is consistent with the results of texture, calcium carbonate, bulk density, clay mineralogy and organic matter. In Profile 1 (curve on the right) the potential fall from 0 to −200 kPa is linked by a substantial reduction in the soil water content, a fact which does not occur in Profile 2. The amendment with sugar foam influences the porosity associated with the structure at low water potentials, close to the field capacity, and has less influence on pores for high water potentials, close to the permanent wilting point. In spite of this, the soil that has been disturbed always has higher moisture content at any of the matric potentials compared to the natural one. Fig. 2 shows the water retention curves of the superficial horizons from the soils carried out with tensiometers (non-sieved samples and with m up to −80 kPa). These curves are particularly interesting from an agronomic point of view since they show the true available water for crops. Again, it is observed how the soil
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
-200
Matric potencial (kPa)
Profile 1 0.79 Ap1 Profile 2 1.19 Ap
Field capacity (%)
-400 -600 -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600
Fig. 1. Water retention curves of soil in Profile 1 (Las Casas, discontinuous line, on the right) and in Profile 2 (Almagro, continuous line, on the left).
Water content (%) 0,0 0
lMatric potencial (kPa)
Bulk density (g cm−3 )
0,0 0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
-10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 -90
Fig. 2. Water retention curves of soil in Profile 1 (Las Casas, , on the right) and in Profile 2 (Almagro, , on the left) carried out with tensiometers on non-sieved samples.
moisture content of Profile 1, altered by the addition of sugar foam waste, is higher than that of Profile 2 at any potential. The increase of organic matter which means the incorporation of waste makes the structure-associated porosity increase (Walczak et al., 2006), the bulk density reduce, and the moisture retention properties are changed (Khaleel et al., 1981; Horn et al., 1994; Haynes and Naidu, 1998). Based on these data, the sugar foam can be considered as an effective alternative to improve the agricultural conditions of the soils. 4. Conclusions The sugar foam applied to the red soils over an extended period of time (>25 years) changes their physical and chemical properties. Regarding to the chemical properties, an increase in the presence of organic matter and calcium carbonate is noted. The pH increases but the electrical conductivity does not increase significantly. With regard to the physical properties, the depth of horizon A increases, the stoniness reduces, the structure is well developed, the texture becomes finer and the bulk density decreases. Some of these characteristics are in themselves positive for crops and others influence the alteration of the soil moisture retention properties. The addition of sugar foam means that the soil has higher moisture content at any matric potential and, therefore, more available water retention capacity for crops.
C. Pérez-de-los-Reyes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2011) 1834–1839
Agro-industrial by-products such as sugar foam may be considered as effective alternatives to improve soil quality in agriculture and, therefore, for sustainable use. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Mr. Alfonso Artigao Ramírez and ˜ Sahuquillo from the Department of Vegetable Mr. José María Núnez Production and Agrarian Technology at the University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain, for their contribution. References Abrol, I.P., Khosla, B.K., Bhumbla, D.R., 1968. Relationship of texture to some important soil moisture constants. Geoderma 2, 33–39. Alonso, F.P., Arias, J.S., Fernández, R.O., Fernandez, P.G., Serrano, R.E., 2006. Agronomic implications of the supply of lime and gypsum by-products to palexerults from western Spain. Soil Science 171 (1), 65–81. Anne, A., 1945. Sur le dosage rapid du carbone organique de sols. Annals of Agronomy 2, 161–172. Ebro, 2005. Informe monográfico 1: CarboAzucarera Dirección agrícola del Departamento de Agronomía. cal, http://www.aeasa.com/agricola/pdf/carbocal.pdf. Bronick, C., Lal, R., 2005. Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124, 3–22. Chaney, K., Swift, R.S., 1984. The influence of organic matter on aggregate stability in some British soils. Journal of Soil Sciences 35, 415–420. Drouineau, G., 1942. Dosage rapide du calcaire actif de sols. Annals of Agronomy 12, 441–450. European Commission, 2005. Waste generated and treated in Europe. Data http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY OFFPUB/KS-69-051995–2003. 755/EN/KS-69-05-755-EN.PDF (last accessed: 1 February 2011). European Communities, 2000. La Unión Europea apuesta por la gestión de residuos. Oficina de Publicaciones Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/publications/pdf/eufocus es.pdf (last accessed: 1 February 2011). FAO, 2006. Guidelines for Soil Description, 4th ed. AO/UNESCO, Rome. FAO ISRIC ISSS, 2006. World reference base for soil resources. A framework international classification, correlation and communication. World Soil Resources Report 103. FAO, Rome, 132 pp. Fernández-Gálvez, J., Barahona, E., 2005. Changes in soil water retention due to soil kneading. Agricultural Water Management 76, 23–61. García Navarro, F., Amorós, J.A., Sánchez, C., Bravo, S., Márquez, E., Jiménez-Ballesta, R., 2009. Application of sugar foam to red soils in a semiarid Mediterranean environment. Environmental Earth Sciences 59, 603–611. Garrido, F., Illera, V., Vizcaíno, C., García-González, M.T., 2003. Evaluation of industrial by-products as soil acidity amendments: chemical and mineralogical implications. European Journal of Soil Science 54, 411–422. Gee, G.W., Bauder, J.W., 1986. Particle-size analysis. In: Klute A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph No. 9, ASA-SSSA, Madison, pp. 383–411. Haynes, R.J., Naidu, R., 1998. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 51, 123–137. Hollis, J.M., Jones, R.J.A., Palmer, R.C., 1977. The effects of organic matter and particle size on the water-retention properties of some soils in the West Midlands of England. Geoderma 17, 225–238. Horn, R., Taubner, H., Wuttke, M., Baumgartl, T., 1994. Soil physical properties related to soil structure. Soil and Tillage Research 30, 187–216. Ingelmo, F., Rubio, J.L., 2008. Efecto de la aplicación del compost sobre las propiedades físicas y químicas del suelo. In: Compostaje, Moreno, J., Moral, R. (Eds.), Ediciones Mundi-Prensa, Madrid, pp. 305–328. Jamison, V.C., Kroth, E.M., 1957. Available moisture storage capacity in relation to textural composition and organic matter content for several Missouri soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 22 (3), 189–192.
1839
Jiménez-Ballesta, R., Vizaíno, C., 1978. Características mineralógicas de la fracción arcilla en algunos suelos del contacto Paleozoico-Mioceno en Montes-Islas (Toledo). Revista Iberoamericana de Cristalografía y Mineralogía Metalogenética 1, 117–223. Jiménez-Moraza, C., Iglesias, N., Palencia, I., 2006. Application of sugar foam to a pyrite-contaminated soil. Minerals Engineering 19, 399–406. Juárez, M., Sánchez, J., Sánchez, A., 2006. Química del suelo y medio ambiente. Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain. Juhász, C.E.P., Cooper, M., Ribeiro, P., Oppitz, A., Shiso, R., 2007. Savanna woodland soil micromorphology related to water retention. Scientia Agricola 64 (4), 344–354. Khaleel, R., Reddy, K., Overcash, M.R., 1981. Changes in soil physical properties due to organic waste applications: a review. Journal Environmental Quality 10 (2), 133–141. Kironchi, G., Kinyali, S.M., Mbuvi, J.P., 1995. Environmental influence on water characteristics of soils in two semi-arid catchments in Laikipia, Kenia. African Crop Science Journal 3 (4), 479–486. López, A., Vidal, M., Blázquez, R., Urbano, P., 2001. Differential effects of lime and sugar foam on the mineral composition and forage productivity of an acid soil. Agrochimica 45 (3–4), 89–98. Madankumar, N., 1985. Prediction of soil moisture characteristics from mechanical analysis and bulk density data. Agricultural Water Management 10, 305–312. Madejón, E., Lopez, R., Murillo, J.M., Cabrera, F., 2001. Agricultural use of three (sugarbeet) vinasse composts: effect on crops and chemical properties of a Cambisol soil in the Guadalquivir river valley (SW Spain). Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 84, 53–65. Marinari, S., Masciandaro, G., Ceccanti, B., Grego, S., 2000. Influence of organic and mineral fertilisers on soil biological and physical properties. Bioresource Technology 72, 9–17. Moore, D.M., Reynolds, R.C.J., 1989. X-Ray Diffraction and the Identification and Analysis of Clay Minerals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 332 pp. Nimmo, J.R., 1997. Modeling structural influences on soil water retention. Soil Science Society of American Journal 61, 712–719. Pachepski, Y., Rawls, W., 2003. Soil structure and pedotransfer functions. European Journal of Soil Science 54, 443–451. Porta, J., 1986. Técnicas y experimentos en Edafología. Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros ˜ Barcelona, Spain. Agrónomos de Cataluna, Porta, J., López-Acevedo, Vidal, M., Roquero, C., 1999. Edafología para la agricultura y el medio ambiente, Mundiprensa, Madrid, Spain. Rawls, W.J., Pachepsky, Y.A., Ritchie, J.C., Sobecki, T.M., Bloodworth, H., 2003. Effect of soil carbon on soil water retention. Geoderma 116, 61–76. Reeve, M.J., Smith, P.D., Thomasson, J., 1973. The effect of density on water retention properties of field soils. European Journal of Soil Science 24 (3), 355–367. Richards, L.A., 1948. Porous plate apparatus for measuring moisture retention and transmission by soil. Soil Science 66, 105–110. Salter, P.J., Berry, G., Williams, J.B., 1966. The influence of texture on the moisture characteristics of soils. European. Journal of soil Science 17 (1), 93–98. SCS-USDA, 1972. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 1. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods and Procedures for Collecting Soil Samples. US Govt. Printing Office, Washington. Sikora, L.J., Azad, M.I., 1993. Effect of compost-fertilizer combinations on wheat yields. Compost Science & Utilization 1, 93–96. Soil Survey Staff, 2006. Key to Soil Taxonomy, 10th ed. USDA-NCRS. Tejada, M., González, J.L., 2003. Application of a by-product of the two-step olive oil mill process on rice yield. Agrochimica 47, 94–102. Vidal, M., Garzon, E., Garcia, V., Villa, E., 2006. Differentiating the amending effects of calcareous materials applied to acid soils by use of optimal scaling procedures. Agrochimica 50 (3–4), 132–147. Villa, E., 2005. Producción de biomasa en suelos ácidos corregidos con enmiendas calizas. Vida Rural 221, 58–60. ´ C., Fernandez, E., Arrue, J.L., 2006. Modeling of Walczak, R.T., Moreno, F., Sławinski, soil water retention curve using soil solid phase parameters. Journal of Hydrology 329 (3–4), 527–533. Williams, J., Prebble, R.E., Williams, W.T., Hignett, C.T., 1983. The influence of texture, structure and clay mineralogy on the soil moisture characteristic. Australian Journal of Soil Research 21, 15–32. Wösten, J.H.M., Pachepsky, Y.A., Rawls, W.J., 2001. Pedotransfer functions: bridging the gap between available basic soil data and missing soil hydraulic characteristics. Journal of Hydrology 251, 123–150.