Kazemi, Z., Neyshabouri, M., Zaree Haghi, D., Asgarzadeh, H. (2018). Determination of the Least Limiting Water Range Based on Sunflower Plant Response. , 32(2), 165-176. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2018.117039
Z. Kazemi; M. R. Neyshabouri; D. Zaree Haghi; H. Asgarzadeh. "Determination of the Least Limiting Water Range Based on Sunflower Plant Response". , 32, 2, 2018, 165-176. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2018.117039
Kazemi, Z., Neyshabouri, M., Zaree Haghi, D., Asgarzadeh, H. (2018). 'Determination of the Least Limiting Water Range Based on Sunflower Plant Response', , 32(2), pp. 165-176. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2018.117039
Kazemi, Z., Neyshabouri, M., Zaree Haghi, D., Asgarzadeh, H. Determination of the Least Limiting Water Range Based on Sunflower Plant Response. , 2018; 32(2): 165-176. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2018.117039

Determination of the Least Limiting Water Range Based on Sunflower Plant Response

پژوهش های خاک
Article 3, Volume 32, Issue 2, September 2018, Pages 165-176    PDF (933.71 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.22092/ijsr.2018.117039
Authors
Z. Kazemi* 1; M. R. Neyshabouri2; D. Zaree Haghi3; H. Asgarzadeh4
1PhD Student, University of Tabriz
2Professor, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz
3Assistant Professor, University of Tabriz
4Assistant Professor, University of Urmia
Abstract
The range of soil water content where plant growth is least limited by water potential, soil aeration or mechanical resistance is called least limiting water range (LLWR). This study evaluated the values of LLWR determined according to the procedures proposed by da Silva et al. with those calculated on the basis of sunflower plant (Helianthus annuus L) response (LLWRP). In both methods LLWR is taken as the difference between the two soil moisture limits designated as upper (θUL) and lower (θLL). In the first method, the two limits are determined basically from the soil moisture and soil resistance characteristic curves, almost overlooking the plant type and its particular needs or behaviors. In the second method, as proposed in this research, the two limits are determined based on the stomatal response in a sandy clay loam soil packed into PVC tubes (called pots hereafter) with 30 cm diameter and 70 cm height at three compaction levels (soil bulk density equal to 1.75, 1.55 and 1.35 Mg.m-3) designated as D1, D2 and D3. Each pot was planted with three pre-soaked sunflower seeds and pots were kept under optimum condition until onset of the flowering stage. At this time two successive drying cycles were imposed and soil moisture and midday stomatal conductance were routinely measured. LLWRP were computed on the basis of relationship between soil matric suction and stomatal conductance. Results showed that on the basis of stomatal conductance behavior water uptake began at the soil matric suctions of 44, 16, 60 and continued up to 17394,31614, 39983 cm in D1, D2 and D3 treatments, respectively. Appreciable differences were observed between LLWR and LLWRP particularly when the lower limit moisture suction (equivalent to θUL for LLWR) was set at 330 cm (LLWR330). LLWR330 values of 0.148, 0.147 and 0.080 cm3cm-3 were obtained for D1, D2, D3 treatments, respectively, which were 51, 49 and 63 percent lower than the corresponding LLWRP values. This differences imply that the two moisture limits (θUL and θLL) proposed by da Silva et al. may not be applied indiscriminately for all plants and thus need to be modified according to plant needs or responses.  
Keywords
Soil moisture characteristic curve; Soil mechanical characteristic resistance curve; Stomatal conductance
References
  1. زارع حقی، د.، نیشابوری، م. ر.، گرجی، م.، صادقزاده ریحان، م. ا. و عمارت­پرداز، جاوید . 1393. ارزﯾﺎﺑﯽ داﻣﻨﻪ رﻃﻮﺑﺘﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺣﺪاﻗﻞ ﻣﺤﺪودﯾﺖ در داﻧﻬﺎلﻫﺎی ﭘﺴﺘﻪ رﻗﻢ ﺳﺮﺧﺴﯽ. ﻧﺸﺮﯾﻪ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ آب در ﮐﺸﺎورزی. جلد 28 .شماره 2: 363 -353.
  2. ﮐﺎﻇﻤﯽ، ز.، ﻧﯿﺸﺎﺑﻮری، م.ر.، ﺑﯿﺎت،ح.، اوﺳﺘﺎن ش.، و ﻣقدم، م.1393. ﮐﺎراﯾﯽ ﻣﺪلﻫﺎی ﺑﺮآورد داﻣﻨﻪ رﻃﻮﺑﺘﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺣﺪاﻗﻞ ﻣﺤﺪودﯾﺖ در ﺧﺎک.  ﻧﺸﺮﯾﻪ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶﻫﺎی خاک: ج. 28. شماره 4: 699-688.
  3. شرکت دانه­های روغنی. 1375.آمار تولید و مصرف روغن در طی دهه­های اخیر و دلایل افرایش و کاهش آن. انتشارات شرکت سهامی توسعه کشت دانه­های روغنی. تهران.
  4. عُنّابی میلانی، ا. 1395. ارزیابی شاخص‌های LLWR و IWC در سطوح مختلف شوری خاک با استفاده از سرعت صعود شیره آوندی در درخت بادام. پایان­نامه دکتریعلوم و مهندسی خاک. دانشگاه تبریز.
  5. Arshad, M.A., Lowery, B. and Grossman, B. 1996. Physical tests for monitoring soil quality. In: Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. (Eds.): Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. SSSA Spec. Publ. 49. SSSA, Madison, WI. pp: 123-141.
  6. Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R., Mahboubi, A.A., Nosrati, A., and Dexter, A.R. 2010. Soil water availability for plants as quantified by conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity. Plant and Soil. 335 (1-2): 229–244.
  7. Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R., and Nikbakht, A.M. 2014. SAWCal: A user-friendly program for calculating soil available water quantities and physical quality indices. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 109:86-93.
  8. Benjamin, J.G., Nielsen, D.C., and Vigil, M.F. 2003. Quantifying effects of soil conditions on plant growth and crop production. Geoderma 116: 137- 148.
  9. Benjamin, J.G., Nielsen, D.C., Vigil, M.F., Mikha, M.M., Calderon, F. 2014. Water Deficit Stress Effects on Corn (Zea mays L.) Root: Shoot Ratio. Open J. Soil Sci. 4 (4):151-160.
  10. Betz, C.L., Allamars, P.R., Copeland, S.M., and Randall, G.W. 1998. Least limiting water range: traffic and long- term tillage influences in a Webster soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62: 1384- 1393.
  11. Bramley, H., Turner, D.W., Tyerman, S.D., Turner, N.C. 2007 Water flow in the roots of crop species: the influence of root structure, aquaporin activity, and waterlogging. Adv Agron 96:134–196.
  12. Buscher, W.J. 1990. Adjustment of flat-tipped penetrometer resistance data to common water. Trans. ASAE. 33: 519- 524.
  13. Chahal, S.S. 2010. Evaluation of soil hydraulic limitations in determining plant-available-water in light textured soils. PhD thesis. School of Agriculture, Food and Wine. The University of Adelaide. Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  14. Chen, G.; Weil, R.R.; Hill, R.L. 2014. Effects of compaction and cover crops on soil least limiting water range and air permeability. Soil and Tillage Research, Amsterdam, v. 136: 61-69.
  15. Cowan, I.R. 1977. Stomatal behavior and environment. Advances in Botanical Research 4: 117–228.
  16. Cuevas, E., Baeza P., and Lissarrague, J.R. 2006. Variation in stomatal behavior and gas exchange between mid-morning and mid-afternoon of north-south oriented grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. ‘Tempra-nillo’) at different levels of soil water availability. Scientia Hort. 108:173–180.
  17. Da Silva, A.P., Kay, B.D., and Perfect, E. 1994. Characterization of the least limiting water range of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58: 1775- 1781.
  18. Da Silva, A.P., Imhoff, S., and Kay, B.D. 2004. Plant response to mechanical resistance and air-filled porosity of soils under conventional and no-tillage system. Scientia Agricola.61:451-456.
  19. Day, Robert W. 2001. Soil Testing Manual: Procedures, Classification Data, and Sampling Practices. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. pp: 293–312.
  20. de Jong van Lier, Q., and Gubiani, P.I. 2015. Beyond the least limiting water range rethinking soil physics in Brazil. R. Bras. Ci. Solo: 39: 925-939.
  21. de Lima, C. L.R., Suzuki, L.E.A. S., Reinert, D.L.; Reichert, J.M. 2015. Least limiting water range and degree of compactness of soil under no tillage. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 31, n. 4: p. 1071-1080.
  22. de Souza, G.S., Alves, D.I. , Dan, M.L. de Souza Lima, J. S., da Fonseca, A. L. C. C., Araújo J. B. S. and Guimarães, L. A. O. P. 2017. Soil physico-hydraulic properties under organic conilon coffee intercropped with tree and fruit species. Pesq. agropec. bras., Brasília, v.52, n.7: 1-9.
  23. FAO. 1985. Irrigation Water Management: Introduction to Irrigation Chapter 7: Salty Soils.
  24. . Fredlund, D. G. and Xing, A. 1994. Equations for the soil-water characteristic curve. Can. Geotech. J. 31: 521–532.
  25. García-Tejero, I., Durán-Zuazo V.H., Arriaga J., Hernández A., Vélez L.M., and Muriel-Fernández J.L. 2012. Approach to assess infrared thermal imaging of almond trees under water-stress conditions. Fruits 67:463–474.
  26. Grimes, D.W., and Williams, L.E. 1990. Irrigation effects on plant water relations and productivity of ‘Thompson Seedless’ grapevines. Crop Sci. 30: 255–260.
  27. Groenevelt, P., Grant, C.D., 2004. A new model for the soil‐water retention curve that solves the problem of residual water contents. European Journal of Soil Science 55(3), 479-485.
  28. Intrigliolo, D.S., and Castel, J.R. 2006. Vine and soil-based measures of water status in a Tempranillo vineyard. Vitis 45: 157–163.
  29. Kirkham MB, 2004. Principles of Soil and Palnt Water Relations. Elsevier Academic Press.
  30. Klute, A., 1986. Water retention: Laboratory Methods: In: Klute, A., (Ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. SSSA Book Series. Agron. Monogr.9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. USA. pp: 635-662.
  31. Kriedemann, P.E., and Smart R.E. 1969. Effects of irradiance, temperature, and leaf water potential on photosynthesis of vine leaves. Photosynthetica 5: 15–19.
  32. Kosugi, K. 1994. Three-parameter lognormal distribution model for soil water retention. Water Resources Research 30(4): 891-901.
  33. Mohammadi, M.H., Asadzadeh, F., and Vanclooster, M. 2010. Refining and unifying the upper limits of the least limiting water range using soil and plant properties. Plant Soil. 334: 221-234.
  34. Nachabe, M.H. 1998. Refining the definition of field capacity in the literature. J Irrigation Drainage Eng. 124: 230–232..
  35. Nobel PS, Palta JA (1989) Soil O2 and CO2 effects on root respiration of cacti. Plant Soil 120:263–271.
  36. Neyshabouri, M.R., Kazemi, Z., Oustan, Sh., Moghaddam, M. 2014. PTFs for predicting LLWR from various soil attributes including cementing agents. Geoderma, 226-227: 179-187.
  37. Palta, J.A., Nobel, P.S. 1989. Influence of soil O2 and CO2 on root respiration for Agave deserti. Physiol Plant 76:187–192.
  38. Parry, C.K., 2014. Biophysically-based measurement of plant water status using canopy temperature. PhD Thesis, Utah State University. Paper 3563.
  39. Ramos, F.T., de Souza Maia, J.K., Roque, M.W., de Azevedo, E.C., Júnior, J.H.C., Weber, O.L.S., and Bianchini, A. 2015. Correlation of the least limiting water range with soil physical attributes, nutrient levels and soybean yield .African Jurnal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 10 (21): 2240-2247.
  40. Shackel, K. 2011. A plant-based approach to deficit irrigation in trees and vines. Hort. Sci. 46(2): 173–177.
  41. Siegel – Issem, C.M., Burger, J.A., Powers, R.F., Ponder Fand Patterson, S.C. 2005. Seedling root growth as a function of soil density and water content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69: 215-226.
  42. Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A. Leopert, R.H. (Eds), 1996. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3-Chemical Methods. SSSA Book Ser 5.3.SSSA, ASA, Madison, WI.
  43. Tuzet, A., Perrier, A., and Leuning, R. 2003. A coupled model of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Plant, Cell and Environment. 26(7): 1097–1116.
  44. Vartapetian, B.B. 1991. Flood-sensitive plants under primary and secondary anoxia: ultrastructural and metabolic responses. In: Jackson, M.B., Davies, D.D., Lambers, H. (eds) Plant life under oxygen deprivation. SPB, The Hague, Netherlands, 201–216.
Statistics
Article View: 638
PDF Download: 537


counter
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb