Soil water repellency: A molecular-level perspective of a global environmental phenomenon

Daniel, Nicholas R. R.; Uddin, S.M. Mijan; Harper, R.J.; Henry, David J.

doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.039

Cited by 24 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, such compounds may occur even in wettable soils. Hence, the degree of hydrophobicity has been explained by the amount of the hydrophobic aliphatic compounds, their origin, hydration status and intermolecular arrangement on the soil particles and soil surface area (Doerr et al 2005;Diehl 2013;Uddin et al 2017;Daniel et al 2019). Dynamic changes in hydrophobicity can occur due to changes in soil water content, pH, ionic strength and temperature (Diehl 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking soil water repellency and its management

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil water repellency (SWR) is a widespread challenge to plant establishment and growth. Despite considerable research, it remains a recalcitrant problem for which few alleviation technologies or solutions have been developed. Previous research has focused on SWR as a problem to be overcome, however, it is an inherent feature of many native ecosystems where it contributes to ecosystem functions. Therefore, we propose a shift in the way SWR is perceived in agriculture and in ecological restoration, from a problem to be solved, to an opportunity to be harnessed. A new focus on potential ecological benefits of SWR is particularly timely given increasing incidence, frequency and severity of hotter droughts in many regions of the world. Our new way of conceptualising SWR seeks to understand how SWR can be temporarily alleviated at a micro-scale to successfully establish plants, and then harnessed in the longer term and at larger spatial scales to enhance soil water storage to act as a "drought-proofing" tool for plant survival in water-limited soils. For this to occur, we suggest research focusing on the alignment of physico-chemical and microbial properties and dynamics of SWR and, based on this mechanistic understanding, create products and interventions to improve success of plant establishment in agriculture, restoration and conservation contexts. In this paper, we outline the rationale for a new way of conceptualising SWR, and the research priorities needed to fill critical knowledge gaps in order to harness the ecological benefits from managing SWR.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking soil water repellency and its management

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Soil water repellency (SWR) is an intrinsic physiochemical property in coarse-to fine-textured soils under different climates and land uses (Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2009;Daniel et al, 2019;Diehl et al, 2010). The increase of drought stress in the global climate aggravates the SWR (Deurer et al, 2011;Goebel et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil water repellency influences maize yield by changing soil water availability under long-term tillage management

Liang

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Drought is increasingly common due to frequent occurrences of extreme weather events, which further increases soil water repellency (SWR) and influences grain yield. Conservation agriculture is playing a vital role in attaining high food security and it could also increase SWR. However, the relationship between SWR and grain yield under conservation agriculture is still not fully understood. We studied the impact of SWR in 0–5 cm, 5–10 cm, and 10–20 cm layers during three growth periods on grain yield from a soil water availability perspective using a long-term field experiment. In particular, we assessed the effect of SWR on soil water content under two rainfall events with different rainfall intensities. Three treatments were conducted: conventional tillage (CT), reduced tillage (RT), and no-tillage (NT). The results showed that the water repellency index (RI) of NT and RT treatments in 0–20 cm layers was increased by 12.9 %–39.9 % and 5.7 %–18.2 % compared to CT treatment during the three growth periods, respectively. The effect of the RI on soil water content became more obvious with the decrease in soil moisture following rainfall, which was also influenced by rainfall intensity. The RI played a prominent role in increasing soil water storage during the three growth periods compared to the soil total porosity, penetration resistance, mean weight diameter, and organic carbon content. Furthermore, although the increment in the RI under NT treatment increased the soil water storage, grain yield was not influenced by RI (p > 0.05) because the grain yield under NT treatment was mainly driven by penetration resistance and least limiting water range (LLWR). The higher water sorptivity increased LLWR and water use efficiency, which further increased the grain yield under RT treatment. Overall, SWR, which was characterized by water sorptivity and RI, had the potential to influence grain yield by changing soil water availability (e.g. LLWR and soil water storage) and RT treatment was the most effective tillage management compared to CT and NT treatments in improving grain yield.

show abstract

“…Soil water repellency (SWR) is a common phenomenon in coarse‐ to fine‐textured soils across all climatic zones (Daniel, Uddin, Harper, & Henry, 2019). SWR can limit the soil water absorption rate and capacity (Dekker & Jungerius, 2000; Li, Yao, Tang, Chau, & Feng, 2019), resulting in strong influences on the soil degradation and crop growth (González‐Peñaloza et al, 2012; Martínez‐garcía, Korthals, Brussaard, Bracht, & De, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These inconsistent results indicate that not all organic materials induce SWR. Research should focus on specific groups of compounds (Atanassova & Doerr, 2011; Daniel et al, 2019). Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) can have a more useful and sensitive response to soil processes than the SOC (Sparling, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another possible reason for the inconsistency between SWR and SOC is that SWR is affected by factors other than hydrophobic substances. SWR is described as soil water behavior on the soil surface that limits the rate and capacity for soil water absorption (Daniel et al, 2019). The factors that influence the SWR effects on soil function and crop growth, such as water infiltration (Madsen et al, 2011; Rye & Smettem, 2017), plant available water (González‐Peñaloza et al, 2012; Ritsema et al, 2008), and aggregate stability (Girona‐García, Ortiz‐Perpiñá, Badía‐Villas, & Martí‐Dalmau, 2018), are affected by soil water movement that usually occurs as unsaturated flow in a farmland environment (Han & Zhou, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors governing soil water repellency under tillage management: The role of pore structure and hydrophobic substances

Liang

et al. 2020

Land Degrad Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil water repellency (SWR) has significant effects on soil degradation by changing some soil processes (e.g., carbon sequestration and soil erosion). Understanding the influence factors of SWR under conservation agriculture are playing a vital role in the sustainable development for improving soil quality. However, how soil pore structure influence on SWR remains unclear. We aim to assess the impact of hydrophobic substances and pore structure on SWR. Here we conducted two long‐term experimental fields with three treatments: conventional tillage (CT), reduced tillage (RT), and no‐tillage (NT). X‐ray tomography and the sorptivity method were used to measure soil pore structure and SWR, respectively. We found that soil organic carbon (SOC) and microbial biomass carbon (MBC) were higher in RT and NT treatments than in CT. MBC had significant influences on soil water sorptivity (Sw) and water repellency index (RI; p < 0.001), whereas SOC had no influence on Sw (p > 0.05). MBC also showed a closer relationship with SWR than SOC in redundancy analysis. The RT and NT increased the porosity of 55–165 μm that had a positive relationship with ethanol sorptivity and RI (p < 0.05). Ethanol sorptivity increased with an increase in soil pore porosity and connectivity under RT and NT treatments. However, increasing the pore surface area could decrease Sw due to enhance contact area between hydrophobic substances and soil water. Overall, the RT and NT treatments increased the water repellency index, which was a result of the interactions between pore structure and hydrophobic substances.

show abstract

Soil water repellency: A molecular-level perspective of a global environmental phenomenon

Cited by 24 publications

References 43 publications

Rethinking soil water repellency and its management

Rethinking soil water repellency and its management

Soil water repellency influences maize yield by changing soil water availability under long-term tillage management

Factors governing soil water repellency under tillage management: The role of pore structure and hydrophobic substances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About