کاربرد معیارهای PAW و IWC در مدیریت آبیاری و نقش آن بر توزیع شوری خاک و جذب آب گیاه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 فارغ التحصیل دکتری دانشگاه تبریز، دانشکده کشاورزی، گروه علوم و مهندسی خاک

2 استاد، گروه علوم و مهندسی خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران

3 دانشیار پژوهش، مؤسسه تحقیقات فنی و مهندسی کشاورزی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران

4 استادیار، گروه علوم و مهندسی آب، واحد اهواز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران.

5 استادیار، گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران

چکیده

ابتدایی­ترین و متداول­ترین معیار فراهمی آب خاک برای گیاه "آب قابل استفاده گیاه (PAW)" است که دسترسی یکنواخت آب را بین دو حد پتانسیل ماتریک (معادل رطوبت ظرفیت مزرعه­ای تا پژمردگی دائم) فرض می‌کند و از سایر عوامل محدود کننده فراهمی آب برای گیاه صرف‌نظر می­نماید. معیارهای جدیدتر فراهمی آب مانند "ظرفیت آب انتگرالی (IWC)"، محدودیت‌های ناشی از تهویه نامناسب، زهکشی سریع، مقاومت فروروی خاک و شوری را مدنظر قرار می­دهد تا میزان آب قابل استفاده در خاک را به درستی برآورد نماید. در این پژوهش به منظور مقایسه کارایی دو معیار PAW و IWC، در یک باغ پسته تحت سامانه آبیاری قطره­ای، با اندازه­گیری ویژگی­های فیزیکی و هیدرولیکی خاک، مقدار PAW و IWC محاسبه و با استفاده از آن­ها دو مدیریت آبیاری  و  تعیین گردید که به­ترتیب دور آبیاری 8 و 12 روز و مدت آبیاری 6 و 12 ساعت به­دست آمد. پس از صحت سنجی مدل هایدروس برای شرایط باغ که دقت بالای مدلسازی را نشان داد، توزیع شوری و جذب آب گیاه برای دو مدیریت آبیاری مدلسازی شد. نتایج حاصل از مدلسازی نشان داد که در  شوری خاک به مناطق دورتری از ریشه درخت رانده شده و ناحیه با سطوح شوری پایین که نقش موثری در جذب آب دارد گسترش می­یابد. از این رو می­توان بیان کرد که  در مقایسه با  آب بیشتری در دسترس گیاه قرار می­­دهد. براساس مدل­سازی صورت گرفته در  و  به ترتیب 7/63 و 1/48 درصد از نیاز رطوبتی گیاه تامین شد. بنابراین با استفاده از معیار IWC، مدیریت آبیاری صورت گرفته می­تواند تطابق بهتری با شرایط مزرعه داشته و تنش­های کمتری متوجه گیاه شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Irrigation Management Based on PAW and IWC and Its Effect on Soil Salinity Distribution and Root Water Uptake

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Ataee 1
  • Mohammad Reza Neyshabouri 2
  • Mehdi Akbari 3
  • Aslan Egdernezhad 4
  • Safoora Asadi 5
1 PhD Graduated, Department of soil science, College of agriculture, Tabriz University, Iran.
2 Professor, Department of Soil Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran.
3 Associate professor of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Agricultural Engineering Research Institute (AERI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Water Sciences and Engineering, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
5 Assistant Professor, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University Of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
چکیده [English]

Plant Available Water (PAW) is the most common criteria for Soil Available Water (SAW) to plants which assumes uniform water availability between two matric potential limits (field capacity to permanent wilting point) and ignore other limiting factors for plants. Integral Water Capacity (IWC) is one of the most recently developed criteria for SAW that consider all soil restrictions including unsufficient aeration, rapid drainage, resistance of root penetrability and salinity, in order to estimate the SAW properly. In this study, in order to compare the applicability of PAW and IWC criteria in irrigation management, soil physical and hydraulical properties of a pistachio garden, with drip irrigation system, were measured and PAW and IWC ​​were calculated. Based on these criteria, two irrigation regimes ( and) were determined. According to the results, the irrigation periods for  and were 8 and 12 days and irrigation duration were obtained 6 and 12 hours, respectively. Soil salinity distribution and root water uptake in two irrigation regimes were simulated using HYDRUS-2D model after validation for garden condition which showed a high accuracy for modeling. The results showed that in , soil salinity is driven to areas farther from the root of the tree and the area with low salinity levels, which plays an effective role in water absorption, are expanded. Based on the simulation, 63.7% and 48.1% of crop water requirement were provided through  and  managements, respectively. Therefore, by using IWC index, irrigation management could have a better accommodation to field conditions and leads to less water and salinity stress.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • HYDRUS Model
  • Integral water capacity
  • Irrigation regime
  • Plant available water
  • Soil water availability
AbouLila, T.S., Berndtsson, R., Persson, M., Somaida, M., El-Kiki, M., Hamed, Y. & Mirdan, A. (2012). Numerical evaluation of subsurface trickle irrigation with brackish water. Irrigation Science. 31, 1125-1137.
Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R. & Nikbakht, A.M. (2014a). SAWCal: A user-friendly program for calculating soil available water quantities and physical quality indices. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 109, 86-93.
Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R., Dexter, A.R., Mahboubi, A.A. & Neyshabouri. M.R. (2014b). Determination of soil available water for plants: Consistency between laboratory and field measurements. Geoderma. 226-227, 8-20.
Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R., Mahboubi, A.A., Nosrati, A. & 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, 229-244.
Asgarzadeh, H., Mosaddeghi, M.R., Mahboubi, A.A., Nosrati, A. & Dexter. A.R. (2011). Integral energy of conventional available water, least limiting water range and integral water capacity for better characterization of water availability and soil physical quality. Geoderma. 166, 34-42.
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Fao, Rome, 300(9), D05109.
Ataee, A., Akbari, M., Neyshaboori, M.R.,  Zarehaghi, D. & Onnabi Milani, A. (2019). Pistachio response to water and salinity distribution in surface and subsurface drip irrigation systems. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage. 13(1), 115-128. (In Farsi).
Ataee, A., Neyshaboori, M.R., Akbari, M., Zarehaghi, D. & Onnabi Milani, A. (2018). Evaluation of HYDROUS-2D model for determination of soil moisture distribution under surface and sub-surface drip irrigation of pistachio trees. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture. 32(4), 581- 595. (in Farsi).
Babazadeh, H., Tabrizi, M.S. & Homaee, M. (2017). Assessing and Modifying Macroscopic Root Water extraction basil (Ocimum basilicum) models under simultaneous water and salinity stresses. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 81(1), pp.10-19.
Dane, J. H. & Hopmans, J. (2002). Water retention and storage. In Dane J. H. & Clake, G. C. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 4. Physical Methods. (pp. 671-720). Madison: SSSA Book Series.
Dastoorani, M., Poormohammadi, S. & Rahimian, M.H. (2012). Estimation of actual evapotranspiration in ardakan pistachio orchards using remote sensing. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture. 26(1), 1- 13. (in Farsi).
Durner, W. (1994). Hydraulic conductivity estimation for soils with heterogeneous pore structure. Water Resources Research. 30, 211-223.
Fazel, F., Gheysari, M., Mohamadian, M. & Etemadi, N. (2017). Effect of maximum allowable depletion on irrigation use and plant parameters of grass under subsurface drip irrigation management. Journal of Irrigation Sciences and Engineering. 40(1), 155-165.
Gee, G.W. & Bauder, J.W. (1986). Particle-size analysis. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1 – Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Lewis Publishers. Madison, WI. pp. 383–411.
Goldhamer, D.A. (1995). Irrigation management. In: Ferguson, L. (Ed.), Pistachio Production Manual. Center for Fruit and Nut Research and Information, Davis, pp. 71-81
Goldhamer, D. A. (2005). Tree water requirements and regulated deficit irrigation. Pistachio production manual, 4, 103-116.
Groenevelt, P., Grant, C. & Semetsa, S. (2001). A new procedure to determine soil water availability. Soil Research. 39, 577-598.
Guerrero, J., Moriana, A., Pérez-López, D., Couceiro, J., Olmedilla, N. & Gijón, M. (2005). Regulated deficit irrigation and the recovery of water relations in pistachio trees. Tree physiology. 26, 87-92.
Hartemink, A. E., McBratney, A. B., & Cattle, J. A. (2001). Developments and trends in soil science: 100 volumes of Geoderma (1967–2001). Geoderma, 100(3-4), 217-268.
Hosseini, F., Mosaddeghi, M., Hajabbasi, M. & Sabzalian, M. (2016). Role of fungal endophyte of tall fescue (Epichloë coenophiala) on water availability, wilting point and integral energy in texturally-different soils. Agricultural Water Management. 163,197-211.
Hoseini, Y., Babazadeh, H. & Khakpour Arablou, B. (2016). Evaluating water uptake reduction functions under salinity and water stress conditions in pepper (capsicum annuum). Journal of Water Research in Agriculture. 29(4), 509- 523. (in Farsi)
Jamieson, P. D., Porter, J. R. & Wilson, D. R. (1991). A test of the computer simulation model ARCWHEAT1 on wheat crops grown in New Zealand. Field crops research, 27(4), 337-350.
Klute, A. (1986). Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods. In: Klute, A. (ed.), Methods of soil analysis: part 1: Physical and mineralogical methods. Agronomy monograph vol 9, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin. p. 687–732.
Meskini-Vishkaei, F., Mohammadi, M.H., Neishabouri, M.R. & Shekari, F. (2017). A model to estimate soil water depletion coefficient using plant and soil properties. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research. 48(4), 749-758. (In Farsi).
Meskini-Vishkaee, F., Mohammadi, M.H. & Neyshabouri, M.R. (2018). Revisiting the wet and dry ends of soil integral water capacity using soil and plant properties. Soil Research. 56(4), 331-345.
Minasny, B. & McBratney, A.B. (2003). Integral energy as a measure of soil-water availability. Plant and Soil. 249, 253-262.
Mohammadi, M.H. & Khataar, M. (2018). A simple numerical model to estimate water availability in saline soils. Soil Research, 56(3), 264-274.
Nelson, D.W. & Sommers, L.E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: D.L. Sparks, A.L. Page, P.A. Helmke, R.H. Loeppert, P.N. Soltanpour, M.A. Tabatabaei, C.T. Johnson and M.E. Sumner (eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3, Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Book Serie 5. SSSA, Madison, WI, USA. pp. 967-1010.
Nelson, R.E. (1982). Carbonate and Gypsum. In: A.L. Page, R.H. Miller, and D.R. Keeney (eds.) Methods of Soil Analysis part 2, 2nd ed., Chemical and microbiological properties. Agronomy Monograph 9, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. Pp. 181–197.
Neyshabouri, M.R., Kazemi, Z., Oustan, S. & Moghaddam, M. (2014). PTFs for predicting LLWR from various soil attributes including cementing agents. Geoderma 226-227, 179-187.
Phogat, V., Mahadevan, M., Skewes, M. & Cox. J.W. (2012). Modelling soil water and salt dynamics under pulsed and continuous surface drip irrigation of almond and implications of system design. Irrigation Science. 30, 315-333.
Sedaghati, N., Alizadeh, A., Ansari, H., & Hosseinifard, S. J. (2016). Study of Changes in Soil Moisture and Salinity Under PlasticMulch and Drip Irrigation in Pistachio Trees. Journal of Nuts (International Journal Of Nuts And Related Sciences). 7, 21-33.
Šimůnek, J., Van Genuchten, M.T. & Šejna, M. (2012). The HYDRUS software package for simulating two-and three-dimensional movement of water, heat, and multiple solutes in variably-saturated media. Technical Manual, version 2, 230.
Skaggs, T., Trout, T., Šimunek, J. & Shouse. P. (2004). Comparison of HYDRUS-2D simulations of drip irrigation with experimental observations. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Eengineering. 130, 304-310.
Testi, L., Goldhamer, D., Iniesta, F. & Salinas, M. (2008). Crop water stress index is a sensitive water stress indicator in pistachio trees. Irrigation Science. 26, 395-405.
Van Genuchten, M.T. (1987). A numerical model for water and solute movement in and below the root zone. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, US Salinity Laboratory, Reverside.
Vrugt J. A., Hopmans, J.W. & Simunek, J. (2001). Calibration of a two-dimensional root water uptake model. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 65, 1027-1037.