The Efficiency of Arabic Gum on Improvement of Physical and Chemical Properties of Saline-Sodic and Non-Saline-Sodic Soils near Lake Urmia

آب و خاک

Article 11, Volume 32, Issue 5 - Serial Number 61, November 2018, Pages 987-1001   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.v32i5.71169

Authors

Zahra Habibi; Mehdi Rahmati^* ; Ali Asghar Alilou; Esmaeil Karimi

University of Maragheh

Abstract

Introduction: The use of soil amendments more specifically bio-polymers is increasing nowadays. Arabic Gum is also one of the hydrogels that are capable for soil modification. It seems that the main usage of amendments in soils is to improve the structure of intended soils. Saline-sodic soils are among the poorly structured soils. The use of soil amendments in these soils may be of the most concern. The different conditions of saline-sodic soils in terms of microbial activity and sodium concentration imply that there should be differences in effects of different soil amendments in saline-alkaline and non-saline-alkaline soils. There is no report (up to our knowledge) about the application of Arabic gum in saline soils. However, it seems that the effects of Arabic gum in saline-sodic soils may differ from what in non-saline-alkaline soils due to the interactions between Arabic gum, salinity, and sodium. Therefore, the current research was aimed to investigate the effects of Arabic gum as an analogue of exopolysaccharides on several soil characteristics of saline-sodic and non-saline-sodic soils collected from Lake Urmia catchment, northwest of Iran.
Materials and Methods: The current research was carried out using loam soil samples collected from Qareh Chopogh village located on the southeastern border of Lake Urmia, Bonab plain, Northwest of Iran. In order to evaluate the effects of Arabic gum on properties of salin-sodic and non-saline-sodic soils, a factorial experiment based on completely randomized design (CRD) with two factors (salinity - sodicity levels and Arabic gum) and three replications was carried out. Salinity - sodicity levels, as first factor, included  EC = 1 dSm-1 and SAR = 1.3 (non-saline-sodic soil), EC = 6 dSm-1 and SAR = 16 (saline - sodic soil), and EC = 30 dSm-1 and SAR = 58 (severely saline-sodic soil). When soils were sampled from each salinity-sodicity classe and transformed to laboratory, pots were prepared and treated with different levels of Arabic gum including 0, 5, and 10 g kg-1 and incubated for one month with varying soil water content between around 0.5FC and FC. After incubation time, disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were collected from pots and were prepared for further analysis. Undisturbed soil samples were used to determine bulk density of pots (Db), volumetric (θv) and gravimetric (θm) saturated soil water contents, and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks). Disturbed soil samples were also used to determine wet-aggregate stability (WAS), mean weight diameter (MWD), and mass fractal dimension (Dm) of soil aggregates, soil pH, soil organic carbon (OC), soil cation exchange capacity (CEC), and soil respiration. Finally, results were subjected to analysis of variance in SAS software based on applied design.
Results and Discussion: The interaction of Arabic gum and soil salinity-sodicity was significant for organic carbon, microbial activity and soil structural characteristics (MWD, WAS, and mass fractal dimension). Arabic Gum improved biological soil properties even in saline-sodic soils. The higher microbial activity (16 to 443 mg CO2 kg-1 soil day-1 in higher amount of Arabic gum vs. 3 to 109 mg CO2 kg-1 soil day-1 in blank soil) and organic carbon content (0.31 to 0.36 % in higher amount of Arabic gum vs. 0.14 to 0.22 % in blank soil) were obtained in higher amount of Arabic gum in saline-sodic and non-saline soils. While, the stability (0.88 to 60 vs. 0.9 to 13 %), mean weight diameter (0.06 to 2.53 vs. 0.009 to 0.46 mm), and mass fractal dimensions (0.935 to 2.09 vs. 0.75 to 2.45) of soil aggregates were affected by Arabic gum in non-saline-sodic soils rather than saline-sodic soils. The main effect of soil salinity-sodicity was significant for soil cation exchange capacity, soil pH, gravimetric and volumetric soil water contents, and pots bulk density. The higher amounts of CEC (21 vs. 9 Cmole+.kg-1), pH (8.0 vs. 7.4), volumetric (53 vs. 41 %) and gravimetric (43 vs. 30 %) water contents, and the lower pots bulk density (1.23 vs. 1.37 g.cm-3) were recorded in severely saline-sodic soil compared to non-saline-sodic soil. The main effect of Arabic gum was significant for soil saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil pH where the higher rate of saturated hydraulic conductivity (0.06 cm.min-1 in higher amount of Arabic gum vs. 0.04 cm.min-1 in blank soil) and the lower pH (7.9 in higher amount of Arabic gum vs. 8.2 in blank soil) were recorded in 10 g.kg-1 Arabic gum.
Conclusion: Based on the results, we conclude that although the effectiveness of the Arabic gum is decreased in saline-sodic soils, it significantly affects different soil characteristics. However, it seems that we need to apply higher amount of Arabic gum (higher than 10 g.kg-1) to gain the considerable effects of Arabic gum in saline – sodic soils. Since gradual drying of Urmia Lake, located in northwest of Iran, is leaving behind wide areas of saline and saline-sodic soils which is threatening habitant’s health, modification of these salt-affected areas using Arabic gum can be a useful strategy. Although, improving vegetation density seems to be main key for this aim, application of soil amendments (more specifically Arabic gum) may support the establishment of vegetation in area. Our objective observation also points to this fact that Arabic gum (specifically in higher amount of 10 g.kg-1) resulted in a crust like layer in soil surface specially in dry state that can prevent the removal of salt particles by the wind. However, the effectivity of Arabic gum in preventing the removal of salt particle by the wind (which is a common issue in area) needs to be evaluated through wind tunnel experiments.
 

Keywords

biopolymers; Hydrogels; Soil Amendments; Soil quality; Soil structure

References

1- Anderson D. C., Harper K. T., and Holmgren R. C. 1982. Factors influencing development of cryptogamic soil crusts in Utah deserts. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal of Range Management Archives, 35: 180-185.

2- Badreldin A., Ziada A., and Blunden G. 2009. Biological effects of gum arabic: A review of some recent research. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 47: 1–8.

3- Barzegar A. R., Oades J. M., Rengasamy P., and Giles L. 1994. Effect of sodicity and salinity on disaggregation and tensile strength of an Alfisol under different cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research, 32: 329-345.

4- Bower C. A., Reitemeier R., and Fireman M. 1952. Exchangeable cation analysis of saline and alkali soils. Soil Science, 73: 251-262.

5- Celis J., Sandoval M., and Bello N. 2011. No-linear respiration dynamics in a degraded Alfisol amended with different dose of salmon sludges. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 11: 58-67.

6- Celis J., Sandoval M., and Zagal E. 2009. Actividad respiratoria de microorganismos en un suelo patagonico enmendado con lodos salmonicolas. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria, 41: 275-279.

7- Celis J.E., Sandoval M., Martinez B., and Quezada C. 2013. Effect of organic and mineral amendments upon soil respiration and microbial biomass in a saline-sodic soil. Ciencia e Investigacion Agraria, 40: 571-580.

8- Chenu C., and Stotzky G. 2002. Interactions between microorganisms and soil particles: an overview. Interactions between soil particles and microorganisms: Impact on the terrestrial ecosystem IUPAC John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Manchester, UK:1-40.

9- Chowdhury N., Marschner P., and Burns R. G. 2011. Soil microbial activity and community composition: impact of changes in matric and osmotic potential. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43: 1229-1236.

10- Czarnes S., Hallett P., Bengough A., and Young I. 2000. Root‐and microbial‐derived mucilages affect soil structure and water transport. European Journal of Soil Science, 51: 435-443.

11- Dane J., and Hopmans J.W. 2002. Water Retention and Storage. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 4 Physical Methods: 671-797.

12- El-Jack E.M.M. S. 2003. Effect of Gum Arabic on Some Soil Physical Properties And Growth Of Sorghum Grown On Three Soil Types. University of Khartoum.

13- Emdad M.R., Shahabifar M., and Fardad H. 2006. Effect of different water qualities on soil physical properties. Tenth International Water Technology Conference, Alexandria, Egypt, 647-652.

14- Farooq M., Hussain M., Wakeel A., and Siddique K. H. 2015. Salt stress in maize: effects, resistance mechanisms, and management. A review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35: 461-481.

15- Garcia C., and Hernandez T. 1996. Influence of salinity on the biological and biochemical activity of a calciorthird soil. Plant and Soil, 178: 255-263.

16- Golabian H. 2010. Urumia Lake: hydro-ecological stabilization and permanence. In: Macro-engineering seawater in unique environments. Springer, pp 365-397.

17- Greenland D.J. 1972. Interactions between organic polymers and inorganic soil particles. Proceedings of International symposium on fundamentals of soil conditioning. Edited by M.F. DeBoodt. Ghent, Belgium, 37: 897-914.

18- Grossman R., and Reinsch T. 2002. 2.1 Bulk density and linear extensibility. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 4 Physical Methods, 201-228.

19- Hassanzadeh E., Zarghami M., and Hassanzadeh Y. 2012. Determining the main factors in declining the Urmia Lake level by using system dynamics modeling. Water Resources Management, 26: 129-145.

20- Klute A., and Dirksen C. 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1—Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 687-734.

21- Krista E., Nikos J., and James W. 2003. Basics of Salinity and Sodicity Effects on Soil Physical Properties. Effects of Salinity on Plant Growth, 10.

22- Kullman A., Lehfeldt J., and Ben Kensten H. 1986. The effect of an organic gel on the physical and physiological properties of a sandy soil. Agrokemia Estalajan, 35: 39-47.

23- Mark H. F., Gaylord N. G., and Bikales N. M. 1969. Polysaccharides. In Encyclopedia of polymer science and technology. Wiley, New York, 11, 417.

24- Mavi M. S., and Marschner P. 2017. Impact of Salinity on Respiration and Organic Matter Dynamics in Soils is More Closely Related to Osmotic Potential than to Electrical Conductivity. Pedosphere, 27: 949-956.

25- Mavi M. S., Marschner P., Chittleborough D. J., Cox J. W., and Sanderman J. 2012. Salinity and sodicity affect soil respiration and dissolved organic matter dynamics differentially in soils varying in texture. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 45: 8-13.

26- Metternicht G., and Zinck J. 2003. Remote sensing of soil salinity: potentials and constraints. Remote sensing of Environment, 85: 1-20.

27- Mohamed E.A. 1999. Effect of natural amendments on soil aggregate stability and water flow in different soils. M. Sc. (Agric) thesis, University of Khartoum, Sudan.

28- Nelson D., and Sommers L. E. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of soil analysis Part 2 Chemical and microbiological properties, 539-579.

29- Nimmo J.R., and Perkins K.S. 2002. 2.6 Aggregate Stability and Size Distribution. Methods of soil analysis: Part 4:317-328.

30- Oades J. M., and Waters A. G. 1991. Aggregate hierarchy in soils. Australian Journal Soil Research, 29: 815-828.

31- Postiglione L., Barbieri G., and Tedeschi A. 1995. Long-term effects of irrigation with saline water on some characteristics of a clay loam soil. Riv di Agron, 29: 24-30

32- Rhoades J., Manteghi N., Shouse P., and Alves W. 1989. Soil electrical conductivity and soil salinity: New formulations and calibrations. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 53: 433-439.

33- Salih S. A. 2011. Effect of ground water quantities and some tillage practices on soil reclamation. PhD thesis, University of Al-Neelain, Sudan.

34- Sandford P. A., and Baird J. 1983. Industrial utilization of polysaccharides. In The polysaccharides, G.O. Aspinall (ed). Academic Press, New York, 2: 414-465.

35- Shanmuganathan R., and Oades J. 1982. Effect of dispersible clay on the physical properties of the B horizon of a red-brown earth. Soil Research, 20: 315-324.

36- Tedeschi A., Angelino G., and Ruggiero C. 2006. Physical and chemical properties of long-term salinized soils. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 1: 263-270.

37- Tyler S.W., and Wheatcraft S.W. 1992. Fractal scaling of soil particle-size distributions: analysis and limitations. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 56: 362-369.

38- Warrence N. J., Bauder J. W., and Pearson K.E. 2002. Basics of salinity and sodicity effects on soil physical properties. Departement of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University-Bozeman, MT:1-29.

39- Whistler R., and Hymowitiz T. 1979. Guar agronomy, production, industrial use and nutrition, 1–96.

40- Wichern J., Wichern F., and Joergensen R. G. 2006. Impact of salinity on soil microbial communities and the decomposition of maize in acidic soils. Geoderma, 137: 100-108.

41- Yoder R. E. 1936. A direct method of aggregate analysis of soils and a study of the physical nature of erosion losses. Agronomy Journal, 28: 337-351.

42- Yu R., Liu T., Xu Y., Zhu C., Zhang Q., Qu Z., Liu X., and Li C. 2010. Analysis of salinization dynamics by remote sensing in Hetao Irrigation District of North China. Agricultural Water Management, 97: 1952-1960