Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-rxg44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T07:48:14.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changes in soil hydraulic properties due to organic amendment

Subject: Earth and Environmental Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Haimanote K. Bayabil*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Homestead, Florida, USA
Fitsum T. Teshome
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Homestead, Florida, USA
Niguss Solomon Hailegnaw
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Homestead, Florida, USA
Jian Zhang
Affiliation:
College of Resource and Environmental Engineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China
Yuncong C. Li
Affiliation:
Department of Soil, Water, and Ecosystem Sciences, Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Homestead, Florida, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: hbayabil@ufl.edu

Abstract

The effect of milorganite, a commercially available organic soil amendment, on soil nutrients, plant growth, and yield has been investigated. However, its effect on soil hydraulic properties remains less understood. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of milorganite amendment on soil evaporation, moisture retention, hydraulic conductivity, and electrical conductivity of a Krome soil. A column experiment was conducted with two milorganite application rates (15 and 30% v/v) and a non-amended control soil. The results revealed that milorganite reduced evaporation rates and the length of Stage I of the evaporation process compared with the control. Moreover, milorganite increased moisture retention at saturation and permanent wilting point while decreasing soil hydraulic conductivity. In addition, milorganite increased soil electrical conductivity. Overall, milorganite resulted in increased soil moisture retention; however, moisture in the soil may not be readily available for plants due to increased soil salinity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result, Negative result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Schematic of the evaporation stages of a drying soil (adapted from Lehmann et al., 2008).

Figure 1

Table 1. Selected properties of milorganite and Krome soil used in the study

Figure 2

Figure 2. Daily evaporation rates from soils with and without milorganite and free water surface (a) and relative evaporation rates from soils compared with potential evaporation from a free water surface (b). The gray-shaded bars represent changes of evaporation from Stage I to Stage II for soils with milorganite and non-amended control soils.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Percentage of water retention of soils with and without milorganite, and water columns. Treatment values are averages of three replications.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Soil moisture characteristic curves (a) and hydraulic conductivity (b) from control and milorganite treated soils. Note: hydraulic conductivity readings of 15 and 30% milorganite treatments were multiplied by 200 to achieve the same scale as the control for plotting.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Swelling capacity of milorganite with the addition of water.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Effect of Milorganite on the electrical conductivity of the soil.

Reviewing editor:  Bartosz Adamczyk Natural Resources Institute Finland, Viikki, Helsinki, Finland, 00790
Minor revisions requested.

Review 1: Changes in Soil Hydrological Properties Due to Organic Amendment

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: This paper is well revised following my suggestions, so it is acceptable to be published now。

Presentation

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5

Review 2: Changes in Soil Hydrological Properties Due to Organic Amendment

Conflict of interest statement

I confirm that I have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Comments

Comments to the Author: The authors investigated the response of soil hydraulic properties to different amendment levels. However, there are many shortcomings in the work. The authors are encouraged to invest more time in revising the article and submitting it again.

1. The title. It’s better to use hydraulic properties.

2. The abstract is poorly written. Rewrite to avoid repeating the same phrases many times and to correct the mistakes.

Line 20 “four replicates,” while "three replicates" in lines 84 and 139.

Line 21: Do the treatments also affect evaporation from the free water surface?! Rephrases needed.

3. The methodology. A lot of information was missed.

Line 81: Verify the EC number and unit by comparing it to fig. 6.

The authors didn’t present the soil bulk densities for their packed treatments, which significantly influenced their results due to different initial volumetric water content. This is particularly important with the high swelling capacity of the used material. This applies to the evaporation and the HYPROP experiments.

4. The results. Line 144, fig 4 a. These are the fitted curves. You have to present the observed data for the HYPROP. Moreover, the curves have been extended beyond the measurement range of the HYPROP. I assumed they used the WP4C device to extend the curves, but they didn’t mention that in the methodologies, and if they did, they should correct the measurement to subtract the osmotic pressure from the WP4C measurement, particularly with saline materials. Explain everything in the methodology and the results.

Line 145 saturated??.

Presentation

Overall score 3.3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
3 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3.5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 2.8 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
3 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
3 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
2 out of 5