Influence of climate, water content and leaching on seasonal variations in potential water repellence

Hardie, M; Cotching, WE; Doyle, RB; Lisson, S

doi:10.1002/hyp.8312

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, several studies have revealed a seasonal variation of SWR with high levels in summer and low levels in winter (Crockford et al ., ; Buczko et al ., ; Leighton‐Boyce et al ., ; Keizer et al . , ; Hardie et al ., ; Santos et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Environmental Factors Governing Soil Water Repellency Dynamics in a Pinus Pinaster Plantation in NW Spain

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil water repellency (SWR) is a dynamic property that changes throughout the year. The objective of this work was to identify the environmental factors governing the temporal patterns in SWR in a pine plantation in northwest Spain with a view of predicting its occurrence and persistence. For this purpose, 24 samples were collected from the soil surface (0–5 cm) at 25 different times over a 1‐year period and analysed for SWR by using water drop penetration time test and soil moisture measurements. Temporal variations in SWR exhibited a well‐defined seasonal pattern. The soil surface was largely wettable from late autumn to early spring and extremely water repellent during summer and early autumn. Repellency persistence was rather variable during spring. There was highly significant correlation between SWR and soil moisture content. The moisture range defining the presence or absence of repellency under field conditions was 22–57%. There were also significant correlations with the target variables (maximum temperature, minimum temperature, precipitation and water balance during variably long antecedent periods), with coefficients that increased with increasing length of the antecedent period considered. The moisture content of soil at the time of sampling and the average maximum temperature for the 28 days before sampling are the best predictors of occurrence of SWR and its persistence in different seasons. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Environmental Factors Governing Soil Water Repellency Dynamics in a Pinus Pinaster Plantation in NW Spain

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Laboratory leaching experiments indicated that water repellence was lost (200‐fold reduction in WDPT) by winter rainfall leaching water‐repellent compounds from the A1 horizon. Reestablishment of water repellence required inputs of new water‐repellent compounds in spring and summer (Doerr and Thomas, 2000; Hardie et al, 2012c).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seasonal variation in water repellence, measured as water drop penetration time (WDPT) and water‐entry potential (WEP) on air‐dried aggregates, with daily rainfall. Error bars represent ±1 SD (modified with permission from Hardie et al, 2012c). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Soil moisture response to rainfall was monitored during a 21‐mo period using a continuously logging, access‐tube‐mounted capacitance probe, in which the occurrence of preferential flow was indicated by nonsequential soil moisture response with depth (bypass flow) or wetting front velocities 10 times greater than the measured saturated hydraulic conductivity (Hardie et al, 2013a). Potential water repellence (air‐dried aggregates) was monitored during a 12‐mo period by the water drop penetration time (WDPT) and water‐entry potential (WEP) techniques (Hardie et al, 2012c). The effect of water repellence on soil water movement was investigated by comparing the infiltration of water to that of a 7 mol L −1 ethanol solution (Hardie et al, 2012a).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hydropedology and Preferential Flow in the Tasmanian Texture‐Contrast Soils

Hardie

Doyle

Cotching

et al. 2013

Vadose Zone Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The two‐way interaction between soil morphology and the processes governing soil water movement were investigated for a range of texture‐contrast soil profiles. The texture‐contrast soils consisted of a seasonally water‐repellent sandy loam A1 horizon over a bleached silica‐cemented A2e horizon and a mottled vertic clay subsoil. Differences in soil morphology and structure among sites had little influence on the proportion of soil that participated in infiltration or the maximum depth of infiltration; however, differences in subsoil structure influenced the processes by which water infiltrated and was stored within the B2 horizons. The occurrence of preferential flow was largely controlled by the effects of antecedent soil moisture content on water repellence in the A1 horizon, silica bridging in the A2e horizon, and clay shrinkage in the B2 horizons. Under dry soil conditions, infiltration resulted from up to five different forms of preferential flow. When soils were near field capacity, most forms of preferential flow ceased; however, wetting front instability and lateral flow developed in the A1 horizon. Preferential flows are not thought to have contributed to the pedogenesis of the texture‐contrast soils. Development of the contrasting soil texture horizons, sand infills, and bleached A2e horizons developed before and independently of the observed preferential flow processes in which reworked aeolian sands buried previously developed clay columns.

show abstract

“…Potential water repellency (the repellency value measured at 208C or ambient temperature in a laboratory after oven-drying at a standard temperature) varies seasonally (Leighton-Boyce et al 2005;Roper 2005;Hardie et al 2012), sometimes by up to 1.5 MED units (Roper 2005). Wetting and drying patterns have a significant effect on water repellency (Crockford et al 1991;Franco et al 1995), with repellency becoming most severe in soils exposed to hot and dry conditions when new waxes become fused onto sand surfaces (Franco et al 1995).…”

Section: Environmental Conditionsmentioning

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

Influence of climate, water content and leaching on seasonal variations in potential water repellence

Cited by 22 publications

References 60 publications

Environmental Factors Governing Soil Water Repellency Dynamics in a Pinus Pinaster Plantation in NW Spain

Environmental Factors Governing Soil Water Repellency Dynamics in a Pinus Pinaster Plantation in NW Spain

Hydropedology and Preferential Flow in the Tasmanian Texture‐Contrast Soils

Management options for water-repellent soils in Australian dryland agriculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About