Evaluating a nonionic surfactant as a tool to improve water availability in irrigated cotton

Sullivan, D. G.; Nuti, R. C.; Truman, C. C.

doi:10.1002/hyp.7330

Cited by 14 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, we would expect that irrigation water quality would have similar effects on the water repellency of other coarse-textured soils, in particular those having clay mineralogy with substantial amounts of mica and montmorillonite. Heavily weathered sandy soils with much gibbsite and vermiculite, however, may not react as did the Quincy sand to these classes of surfactants and to irrigation water quality (Lehrsch, 2010, unpublished;Sullivan et al, 2009).…”

Section: Applying the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water quality and surfactant effects on the water repellency of a sandy soil

Lehrsch

Sojka

2011

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

s u m m a r y Differences in irrigation water quality may affect the water repellency of soils treated or untreated with surfactants. Using simulated irrigations, we evaluated water quality and surfactant application rate effects upon the water repellency of a Quincy sand (Xeric Torripsamment). We used a split plot design with two irrigation water qualities, three surfactant application rates, two irrigations, and 12 sampling depths as fixed effects, with four replications. Each water quality Â rate Â irrigation combination was a main plot and depth was a repeated-measures subplot. A slightly water repellent Quincy soil (average water drop penetration time, WDPT, of 2.5 s) was packed in 25-mm lifts (or layers) to a bulk density of 1.6 Mg m À3 into 0.15-m-high Â 0.105-m-diameter plastic columns. We studied a nonionic surfactant, a blend of an ethylene oxide/propylene oxide block copolymer and an alkyl polyglycoside. We sprayed the surfactant at rates of 0, 9.4, and 46.8 L ha À1 , diluted with reverse osmosis water (RW) to apply 187 L ha À1 of solution, onto the soil surface of each packed column. About 1 and 5 days after surfactant application, columns were sprinkler irrigated with either RW or well water (WW). The WDPT was then measured with depth on soil air-dried after the first and after the second irrigation. After the first irrigation, WDPT at depths from 97 to 117 mm averaged across surfactant rates reached a maximum of 28 s, regardless of irrigation water quality. WDPT was greatest at 117 mm with RW but only at 97 mm with WW. After the second irrigation, maximum WDPT was 1202 s at 139 mm with RW but only 161 s at 117 mm with WW, nearly 7.5 fold less than with RW. WDPT was greatest near the wetting front, irrespective of water quality. We conclude that irrigation water containing modest amounts of electrolytes or salts, in this case mostly salts of Ca 2+, reduces water repellency in the presence or absence of surfactant. Our experimental results may also help explain erratic surfactant performance under rainfed conditions where neither water quality nor depth of infiltration can be fully controlled.Published by Elsevier B.V.

show abstract

Section: Applying the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water quality and surfactant effects on the water repellency of a sandy soil

Lehrsch

Sojka

2011

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sullivan et al . () and Lehrsch et al . () reported different runoff responses of wettable soils treated with the same nonionic surfactant, IGG.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…This study was conducted partly to explain the conflicting findings of Sullivan et al . () and Lehrsch et al . ().…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Surfactant effects on the water‐stable aggregation of wettable soils from the continental USA

Lehrsch

2012

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surfactants may affect soil structure differently depending upon the soil or the quality of rainfall or irrigation water. This study examined whether the water‐stable aggregation of 11 wettable soils was affected by surfactants and the water in which the soils were sieved. The study also examined whether the wettable soils' water drop penetration time (WDPT) was affected by surfactants, water drop quality, and elapsed time since the surfactants were applied. Two nonionic surfactants and a surfactant‐free water control were sprayed (by misting) upon air‐dry soil, then WDPT was measured 1 and 72 h thereafter. Subsequently, this treated soil was slowly wetted with an aerosol to its water content at a matric potential of −3 kPa, then immediately sieved for 600 s in water that contained either appreciable or few electrolytes. Water‐stable aggregation, quantified as mean weight diameter (MWD), varied widely among soils, ranging from 0.10 to 1.36 mm. The MWDs were affected (at p = 0.06) by surfactant treatments, depending upon the soil but not sieving water quality. Surfactants affected the MWD of an Adkins loamy sand and Feltham sand, two of the three coarsest‐textured soils. Although WDPTs never exceeded 5 s, depending upon the soil WDPTs were affected by surfactant treatments but not by water drop quality. After surfactant application, WDPTs generally decreased with time for three soils but increased with time for one soil. Findings suggested that surfactants interacted (1) with clay mineralogy to affect MWD and (2) with soluble calcium to affect WDPT for certain soils. Surfactant treatments but not water quality affected both MWD and WDPT for some but not all of 11 wettable, US soils. Published 2012. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

show abstract

“…Both banded and blanket-applied wetting agents were found to be effective in improving crop establishment by up to 100% in lupin and wheat (Blackwell et al 1994c). The longevity of the benefits in subsequent years and impact on crop yield were variable (Sullivan et al 2009), although significant increases (6-fold) in early production of pastures were observed in association with banded wetting agents (Crabtree and Gilkes 1999) and a residual effect remained 2 years on.…”

Section: Soil Wetting Agents (Surfactants)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Management options for water-repellent soils in Australian dryland agriculture

Roper

Davies²,

Blackwell³

et al. 2015

Soil Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Water-repellent ('non-wetting') soils are a major constraint to agricultural production in southern and south-west Australia, affecting >10 Mha of arable sandy soils. The major symptom is dry patches of surface soil, even after substantial rainfall, directly affecting agricultural production through uneven crop and pasture germination, and reduced nutrient availability. In addition, staggered weed germination impedes effective weed control, and delayed crop and pasture germination increases the risk of wind erosion. Water repellency is caused by waxy organic compounds derived from the breakdown of organic matter mostly of plant origin. It is more prevalent in soils with a sandy surface texture; their low particle surface area : volume ratio means that a smaller amount of waxy organic compounds can effectively cover a greater proportion of the particle surface area than in a fine-textured soil. Water repellency commonly occurs in sandy duplex soils (Sodosols and Chromosols) and deep sandy soils (Tenosols) but can also occur in Calcarosols, Kurosols and Podosols that have a sandy surface texture. Severity of water repellency has intensified in some areas with the adoption of no-till farming, which leads to the accumulation of soil organic matter (and hence waxy compounds) at the soil surface. Growers have also noticed worsening repellency after 'dry' or early sowing when break-of-season rains have been unreliable.Management strategies for water repellency fall into three categories: (i) amelioration, the properties of surface soils are changed; (ii) mitigation, water repellency is managed to allow crop and pasture production; (iii) avoidance, severely affected or poorly producing areas are removed from annual production and sown to perennial forage. Amelioration techniques include claying, deep cultivation with tools such as rotary spaders, or one-off soil inversion with mouldboard ploughs. These techniques can be expensive, but produce substantial, long-lasting benefits. However, they carry significant environmental risks if not adopted correctly. Mitigation strategies include furrow-seeding, application of wetting agents (surfactants), no-till with stubble retention, on-row seeding, and stimulating natural microbial degradation of waxy compounds. These are much cheaper than amelioration strategies, but have smaller and sometimes inconsistent impacts on crop production. For any given farm, economic analysis suggests that small patches of water repellency might best be ameliorated, but large areas should be treated initially with mitigation strategies. Further research is required to determine the long-term impacts of cultivation treatments, seeding systems and chemical and biological amendments on the expression and management of water repellency in an agricultural context.

show abstract

Evaluating a nonionic surfactant as a tool to improve water availability in irrigated cotton

Cited by 14 publications

References 21 publications

Water quality and surfactant effects on the water repellency of a sandy soil

Water quality and surfactant effects on the water repellency of a sandy soil

Surfactant effects on the water‐stable aggregation of wettable soils from the continental USA

Management options for water-repellent soils in Australian dryland agriculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About