HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wiegand, C. L. Articles by Swanson, W. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Wiegand, C. L. Articles by Swanson, W. A. Agricola Articles by Wiegand, C. L. Articles by Swanson, W. A.

Sand and Cotton Bur Mulches, Bermudagrass Sod, and Bare Soil Effects on: I. Evaporation Suppression¹

ABSTRACT

Moisture, water table, and temperature changes were recorded for 3 years under four surface cover conditions used for salinity reclamation under the rainfall conditions (58 cm/yr during the study) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Surface cover conditions were (i) 1.5-cm-thick mortar sand mulch; (ii) 44,800 kg/ha cotton bur mulch (Gossypium hirsutum); (iii) coastal bermudagrass sod (Cynodon dactylon L.); and (iv) bare fallow.

Relative profile moisture depletion among treatments and soil moisture suctions measured in the surface 50 cm of the soil show that even shallow soil depths remained moist during long, rainless periods under the sand and cotton bur mulches. The amount of water in the surface 61 cm of soil for 37 measurement dates averaged 1.32 cm more under the burs, 1.38 cm more under the sand much, and 2.85 cm less under the grass sod, respectively, than under the bare soil condition. Monthly means of daily maximum and minimum soil temperatures measured at the 10-cm depth were both in the order sand mulch > bare soil > bur mulch > bermudagrass sod, but the higher soil temperatures under the sand mulch did not obviate its effectiveness in evaporation suppression. Since soil moisture suctions were low under the mulches, even moderate rainfall amounts rewet the soil to field capacity and should have effected leaching.

¹ Contribution from the Soil & Water Conservation Research Division, ARS, USDA, and the Texas Agr. Exp. Sta., Texas A&M Univ. Presented before Div. S-1 and S-6, Soil Science Society of America, Stillwater, Okla., Aug. 25, 1966.

² Research Soil Scientists and Agricultural Research Technician, respectively, USDA, Weslaco, Tex.

Received for publication March 27, 1967. Accepted for publication October 20, 1967.