Role of Divalent Fatty Acid Salts in Soil Water Repellency

2009 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 541-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. R. Graber ◽  
S. Tagger ◽  
R. Wallach
Soil Research ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 251 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Keizer ◽  
A. J. D. Ferreira ◽  
C. O. A. Coelho ◽  
S. H. Doerr ◽  
M. C. Malvar ◽  
...  

Certain organic compounds derived from living organisms or their decaying parts are generally accepted to induce soil water repellency. Water repellency may therefore be expected to increase with proximity to organisms releasing hydrophobic compounds. This hypothesis is tested here for Eucalyptus globulus trees, since eucalypt species are frequently associated with elevated repellency levels. In a young, first-rotation plantation on coastal dune sands in central Portugal, repeat measurements of water repellency using the ‘Molarity of an Ethanol Droplet’ (MED) test were carried out in situ between April 2001 and May 2002. On 25 dates, repellency was measured at initially 2 and later 3 distances on 2 sides of 8–11 randomly selected trees. On 15 occasions, additional repellency measurements were performed within small grids aside 3 of the selected trees. The postulated decrease in topsoil water repellency with increased distance from eucalypt tree stems was found to apply on several individual measurement dates, as well as, more unexpectedly since repellency usually is a transient phenomenon, for the study period as a whole. The results confirm the general association of eucalypt trees with water repellency, and indicate that tree stem proximity is an important but not sufficient factor to explain repellency distribution in topsoil.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-186
Author(s):  
J. Mao ◽  
K. G. J. Nierop ◽  
M. Rietkerk ◽  
S. C. Dekker

Abstract. It is widely accepted that soil water repellency (SWR) is mainly caused by plant-derived hydrophobic organic compounds in soils; such hydrophobic compounds are defined as SWR-markers. However, the detailed influence of SWR-markers on SWR is yet unclear and the knowledge of their original sources is still limited. The aims of this study are to select important SWR-markers to predict SWR based on their correlation with SWR and to determine their origin. In our study, sandy soils with different SWR were collected, along with their covering vegetation, i.e. plant leaves/needles and roots. A sequential extraction procedure was applied to the soils to obtain three organic fractions: DCM / MeOH soluble fraction (D), DCM / MeOH insoluble fraction of IPA / NH3 extract (AI) and DCM / MeOH soluble fraction of IPA / NH3 extract (AS), which were subdivided into ten dominant SWR-marker groups: (D) fatty acid, (D) alcohol, (D) alkane, (AI) fatty acid, (AI) alcohol, (AI) ω-hydroxy fatty acid, (AI) α, ω-dicarboxylic acid, (AS) fatty acid, (AS) alcohol and (AS) ω-hydroxy fatty acid. Waxes and biopolyesters of the vegetation were also sequentially extracted from plants. In short, the soils with higher SWR have significantly higher relative concentrations of (AS) alcohols. A number of indications suggest that (AS) alcohols are mainly derived from roots and most likely produced by microbial hydrolysis of biopolyesters/suberins. In addition, the strong correlation between the biomarkers of plant tissues and SWR-markers in soils suggests that it is more accurate to predict SWR of topsoils using ester-bound alcohols from roots, and to predict SWR of subsoils using root-derived ω-hydroxy fatty acids and α, ω-dicarboxylic acids. Our analysis indicates that plant roots have a primary role influencing SWR relative to plant leaves.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 153-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
AYA TANAKA ◽  
MARIKO ERA ◽  
YUMEHO OBATA ◽  
MANAMI MASUDA ◽  
TAKAYOSHI KAWAHARA ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 1732-1743 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Hallin ◽  
P. Douglas ◽  
S.H. Doerr ◽  
R. Bryant

2013 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 667-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Mainwaring ◽  
I. L. Hallin ◽  
P. Douglas ◽  
S. H. Doerr ◽  
C. P. Morley

SOIL ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 411-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Mao ◽  
K. G. J. Nierop ◽  
M. Rietkerk ◽  
S. C. Dekker

Abstract. It is widely accepted that soil water repellency (SWR) is mainly caused by plant-derived hydrophobic organic compounds in soils; such hydrophobic compounds are defined as SWR markers. However, the detailed influence of SWR markers on SWR is yet unclear and the knowledge of their original sources is still limited. The aims of this study are to select important SWR markers to predict SWR based on their correlation with SWR and to determine their origin. In our study, sandy soils with different SWR were collected, along with their covering vegetation, i.e. plant leaves/needles and roots. A sequential extraction procedure was applied to the soils to obtain three organic fractions: dichloromethane (DCM)/MeOH soluble fraction (D), DCM/MeOH insoluble fraction of isopropanol/ammonia solution (IPA/NH3) extract (AI) and DCM/MeOH soluble fraction of IPA/NH3 extract (AS), which were subdivided into 10 dominant SWR marker groups: D fatty acid, D alcohol, D alkane, AI fatty acid, AI alcohol, AI ω-hydroxy fatty acid, AI α,ω-dicarboxylic acid, AS fatty acid, AS alcohol and AS ω-hydroxy fatty acid. Waxes and biopolyesters of the vegetation were also sequentially extracted from plants. The soils with higher SWR have significantly higher relative concentrations of AS alcohols. A number of indications suggest that AS alcohols are mainly derived from roots and most likely produced by microbial hydrolysis of biopolyesters (mainly suberins). In addition, the strong correlation between the biomarkers of plant tissues and SWR markers in soils suggests that it is more accurate to predict SWR of topsoils using ester-bound alcohols from roots, and to predict SWR of subsoils using root-derived ω-hydroxy fatty acids and α,ω-dicarboxylic acids. Considering the sandy soils studied here, the relationships we obtained need to be tested for other types of soils. Our analysis indicates that plant roots have a primary role influencing SWR relative to plant leaves.


Geoderma ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 402 ◽  
pp. 115264
Author(s):  
Enoch V.S. Wong ◽  
Philip R. Ward ◽  
Daniel V. Murphy ◽  
Matthias Leopold ◽  
Louise Barton

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document