Veizaga 2009 Soil Water Aquacrop

I
N
T
E
R
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
M
E
I
N
W
A
T
E
R
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Effect of Volcanic Rocks on
Soil Water Holding Capacity
and on Crop Water
Productivity Modelling in
the Bolivian Altiplano
Promotors:
Prof. D. Raes
Dr. S. Geerts
Master dissertation in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Water Resources Engineering
by: Alfredo Ronald Veizaga Medina
September 2009
i
Acknowledgements
First of all, to express my gratitude to my promoters, Professor Dirk Raes, who believed and
supported me at the beginning of this big challenge, as well as suggested important issues to
improve this research. And special gratitude to Dr. Sam Geerts, who was always beside to me,
thanks for the support and friendship which was very important to develop this investigation
and to complete the final document, even though he was sometimes very busy, he did not
hesitate in helping me Muchas gracias Dr. Sam Geerts.
Thanks to Flemish Interuniversity Council for University Development Cooperation (VLIR-
UOS) for giving me the opportunity and financial support to be here in Belgium as a student.
And to all of the staff, such as professors, assistants to Mrs. Greta Camps, Martine Gabrils
and Hilde de Coninck from Inter University Programme in Water Resources Engineering
(IUPWARE), who organized the lectures and many activities to provide us a high education.
To Valentinus Tuts, Lore Fondu and Sabrina from the Laboratory of Soil and Water
Management at the Geo-Institute, K.U. Leuven (Department of Earth and Environmental
Sciences, who always were there to help me, during the laboratory work. To my classmates
and compatriots Paola Pacheco and lvaro Gonzles, who helped me to improve this
document in a given moment, as well as we shared many times while we were studying.
And to Institute de Researcher pour le dbeloppement (IRD) and Juan Pablo Rodriguez for
soils data from the southern Bolivian Altiplano, to Karen Vancampenhout for helping me to
get some soil samples, and Armando Molina that sent me important articles related to my
topic, as well as to Dra. Carmen Del Castillo, Claudia Alcn, Cristal Taboada and Cleofe
Ruano thanks for being my friends.
Finally, thanks to my parents Alicia Medina and Hector Veizaga, and all my siblings, who
always encourage me to continue, despite of the problems in life.
ii
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................i
Table of contents.......................................................................................................................ii
List of symbols .........................................................................................................................iv
List of figures ...........................................................................................................................vi
List of tables ...........................................................................................................................viii
Summary ................................................................................................................................... x
Resumen ...................................................................................................................................xi
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1.1 General Objective.............................................................................................................. 3
1.1.2 Specific Objectives............................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Outline of the thesis............................................................................................................... 3
2 Materials and methodology ............................................................................................. 4
2.1 Field work and laboratory...................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Study area.......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1.1 Climate...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1.2 Agriculture................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.2 Data collection................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2.1 Soil samples for determining the soil physical characteristics ................................. 7
2.1.2.2 Soil samples for determining the gravel content (mass%)........................................ 7
2.1.2.2.1 Classifying the volcanic rocks.............................................................................. 8
2.1.3 Laboratory procedure for soil water retention curve (WRC) determination..................... 9
2.1.3.1 Volume, Bulk density and Porosity of volcanic rocks.............................................. 9
2.1.3.2 Experiments to determine water retention curve (WRC) between volcanic rock
fragments (VRF) and soil types ............................................................................................... 10
2.1.3.3 Soil characteristics (Sibelite
M002)...................................................................... 12
2.1.3.4 Origin of soil and particle size................................................................................ 12
2.1.3.5 Soil water retention................................................................................................. 13
2.1.3.5.1 Water content ..................................................................................................... 13
2.1.3.5.2 Soil water retention curve................................................................................... 14
2.1.3.6 Procedure for pF 0 2 ............................................................................................ 16
2.1.3.7 Procedure for pF 2.3 to 2.8..................................................................................... 17
2.1.3.8 Procedure for pF 3.4 to 4.2..................................................................................... 17
2.1.3.9 Statistical analysis................................................................................................... 18
2.1.4 WRC separation of volcanic rock and WRC of soil from mixed samples ...................... 19
2.2 Aqua-Crop modelling.......................................................................................................... 20
2.2.1 Model Inputs.................................................................................................................... 20
iii
2.2.1.1 Climatic data........................................................................................................... 20
2.2.1.2 Crop data................................................................................................................. 20
2.2.1.3 Management data: the fertility effect on water productivity .................................. 21
2.2.1.4 Soil data.................................................................................................................. 22
2.2.2 Sensitivity analysis of the model to different soil physical properties ............................ 23
2.2.2.1.1 Simulation for local sandy soil (from southern Bolivian Altiplano).................. 23
2.2.2.1.2 Simulation for WRC of soil-VRF mixtures versus pure soil (Sibelite
M002) . 24
2.2.2.1.3 Simulations for WRC of sand-VRF mixtures and pure sand ............................. 24
2.2.2.1.4 Sensitivity analysis of the model to water content at field capacity and
permanent wilting for Sibelite
M002 soil .......................................................................... 24

2.2.2.1.5 Sensitivity analysis of the model to water content from laboratory data versus
data of pedotransfer functions.............................................................................................. 25
2.2.3 Water use efficiency (WUE) and statistical analysis....................................................... 25
3 Results and discussion.................................................................................................... 26
3.1 Field work and laboratory.................................................................................................... 26
3.1.1 Data collection................................................................................................................. 26
3.1.1.1 Soil samples for determining the soil physical characteristics ............................... 26
3.1.1.2 Soil samples for determining the gravel content..................................................... 26
3.1.2 Laboratory results for soil water retention curve (WRC) determination......................... 27
3.1.2.1 Volume, Bulk density and Porosity of volcanic rocks............................................ 27
3.1.2.2 WRC of different soil VRF mixtures.................................................................... 28
3.1.2.2.1 Soil particle size of the fine earth (mixed samples)............................................ 28
3.1.2.2.2 Experiment 1, WRC for around 15 vol% of each class of VRF mixed with soil
(Sibelite M002)................................................................................................................. 29
(Sibelite
M002) ................................................................................................................... 31
3.1.2.2.4 Experiment 3, WRC for around 15 vol% of each class of VRF mixed with silty
loam and sandy soils............................................................................................................ 36
3.1.3 WRC separation of volcanic rock and WRC of soil from mixed samples ...................... 45
3.2 AquaCrop modelling............................................................................................................ 47
3.2.1 Sensitivity analysis of the model to different soil physical properties ............................ 47
3.2.1.1.1 Simulation for local sandy soil (from southern Bolivian Altiplano).................. 47
M002) . 49
3.2.1.1.3 Simulations for WRC of sand-VRF mixtures and pure sand ............................. 52
3.2.1.1.4 Sensitivity analysis of the model to water content at field capacity and
permanent wilting for Sibelite
M002 soil .......................................................................... 55

data of pedotransfer functions.............................................................................................. 56
4 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 59
4.1 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 59
4.2 Recommendations................................................................................................................ 61
5 References........................................................................................................................ 62
6 Annexes............................................................................................................................ 69
iv
List of symbols
Symbol Description Unit
AMC Antecedent moisture class
ANOVA Analysis of variance
CICDA-AVSF Agronomes et vtrinaires sans frontires
B Above ground biomass production Mg ha
-1
BET Brunauer, Emmett and Teller (method)
ET
a
Actual evapotranspiration mm
ET
o
Reference evapotranspiration mm
CEC Cation exchange capacity cmol
+
kg
-1
CN Curve number -
CWP Crop water productivity
E Soil evaporation mm
EC Electrical conductivity mS/cm
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FC Field capacity vol%
GIS Geographical information system
HI
o
Reference harvest index (AquaCrop model) -
IBTEN Instituto Boliviano de Ciencia y Tecnologa Nuclear
INRA Institute National de Recherches Agronomiques (France)
IRD Institute de Researcher pour le dbeloppement (France)
IRD-CLIFA IRD for climate and functioning of agro-ecosystems
ISWC Initial soil water content mm
K
SAT
Saturated hydraulic conductivity mm day
-1
MACA Ministerio de Agricultura de Bolivia
M
rf
Mass of volcanic rock fragment kg
M
f
Mass of particles <2.0 mm (fine earth) kg
N Number of replication
n Soil porosity vol%
n
rf
Porosity of volcanic rock fragments vol%
OM Organic matter mass%
P
exp
Soil water depletion factor for canopy expansion -
P
sen
Soil water depletion factor for canopy senescence -
P
sto
Soil water depletion fraction for stomatal control
PWP Permanent wilting point vol%
REW Readily available water mm
RF Rainfed conditions
RO Surface runoff
R
m
Gravimetric rock fragments content mass%
R
v
Volumetric rock fragment content vol%
SAT Saturation vol%
SRC-
SILBECO
Company that extracts and refines various types of minerals
SENAMHI Servicio Nacional de Meteorologa e hidrologa de Bolivia
TAW Total available water (between FC and PWP) mm
v
Symbol Description Unit
T
a
Actual transpiration mm
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
VRF Volcanic rock fragment
V
rf
Volume of the volcanic rock fragments m
3
V
t
Total soil volume (fine earth and rock fragments) m
3
WP * Normalized water productivity Mg ha
-1
WP Crop water productivity kg m
-3
WP
b
Biomass water productivity g m
-2
WRC Water retention curve
WUE
ETa
Water use efficiency for actual evapotranspiration kg m
-3
WUE
Ta
Water use efficiency for actual transpiration kg m
-3
XRF X-ray Fluorescence (method)
Y Total grain yield Mg ha
-1
Y
a
Economically valuable yield Mg ha
-1
Z
n
Minimum effective rooting depth m
Z
x
Maximum effective rooting depth m
Significant level of statistical test -
Volumetric soil water content m
3
m
-3
FC
Volumetric water content at FC m
3
m
-3
m
Gravimetric soil water content m
3
m
-3
PWP
Volumetric water content at PWP m
3
m
-3
SAT
Volumetric water content at SAT m
3
m
-3
rf
Volumetric water content of rock fragment m
3
m
-3
s
Water content in soil without rock fragments m
3
m
-3
t
Volumetric water content of the soil-rock fragment mixture m
3
m
-3
b,f
Bulk density of particles < 2.0 mm (fine earth) kg m
-3
b,rf
Bulk density of rock fragment kg m
-3
b,t
Bulk density of soil including fine earth and rock kg m
-3
p
Particle density of soil kg m
-3
w
Density of water kg m
-3
g
Gravitational potential m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
h
Hydrostatic potential m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
m
Soil matric potential m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
n
Pneumatic potential m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
o
Osmotic potential m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
t
Total water potential m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
vi
List of figures
Figure 1.1. (a) Map of Bolivia showing the quinoa area productions in the southern Bolivian
Altiplano and (b) Geological map of the Bolivian Altiplano showing the volcanic areas
formations (Source: adapted from Risacher and Ritz, 1991). ............................................ 2
Figure 2.1. Maps of South America and Bolivia showing the study area. ................................. 4
Figure 2.2. Rainfall and temperatures from 10 years (Between 1975 and 1985) in Salinas de
Garci Mendoza nearby Irpani (SENHAMI). ...................................................................... 5
Figure 2.3. Predominant vegetation around Irpani in the southern Bolivian Altiplano (Source:
J. P. Raffaillac, IRD). ......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.4. Volcanic rock (Source: Gyllenhaal, 2001)............................................................... 8
Figure 2.5: Determination of volume with Archimedes principle (Source: Rubin J., 2008). . 10
Figure 2.6. Soil water holding capacity for different soil texture classes (Source:
http://www.nivaa.nl/explorer/pagina/pictures/pfcurvey.jpg). .......................................... 15
Figure 2.7. 08.01 Sandbox (Source: Aquagri, 2007). ............................................................... 16
Figure 2.8. Low pressure chamber (Source: Alfredo Veizaga). ............................................... 17
Figure 2.9. High pressure chamber and special rings (Source: Alfredo Veizaga). .................. 18
Figure 2.10. Above ground biomass production (B) in function of T
a
/ET
o
, showing the
biomass water productivity WP
b
for C3 group crops and WP for quinoa under low soil
fertility (dotted line), (Source: Adapted from Raes et al., 2009a). ................................... 22
Figure 3.1. Water retention curve: (a) 17 vol% of VRF of class 1 with soil, (b) 14 vol% of
VRF of class 2 with soil, (c) 14 vol% of VRF of class 3 with soil, (d) 17 vol% of VRF
class 4 with soil, (e ) pure soil (Sibelite
M002). Error bars are 1 standard deviation.

.......................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3.2. Water retention curve: (a) 29 vol% of VRF of class 1 with soil , (b) 27 vol% of
VRF of class 2 with soil, (c) 30 vol% of VRF of class 3 with soil, (d) 25 vol% of VRF
of class 4 with soil, and (e) pure soil (Sibelite
M002). Error bars are 1 standard

deviation. .......................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3.3. Schematisation of macroporosity formation due to presence of VRF inside of the
kopecky ring, for soil-VRF mixtures containing around 15 and 30 vol%, grey colour
represents the fine earth and black colour represents the VRF. ....................................... 35
Figure 3.4. Water retention curve for soil-VRF mixtures composed by around 15 vol% ()
and around 30 vol% of VRF () versus pure soil (), (soil: Sibelite
M002). ................. 35
Figure 3.5. Water retention curve: (a) 16 vol% of VRF of class 1 with SL
1
, (b) 15 vol% of
VRF of class 2 with SL
1
, (c) 15 vol% of VRF of class 3 with SL
1
, (d) 16 vol% of VRF
class 4 with SL
1
and (e) pure SL
1
. Error bars represent one standard deviation. ...... 38
2
, (b) 16 vol% of
VRF of class 2 with SL
2
2
, (d) 16 vol% of VRF
class 4 with SL
2
and (e) pure SL
2
. Error bars represent 1 standard deviation. .......... 40
Figure 3.7. Ternary mixtures (clay, silt and sand), (a) 10 % of clay and (b) 15 % of clay, the
black areas are the macropores and the grey areas represent ternary mixtures (Source:
Fis and Bruand, 1998)..................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.8. Water retention curve: (a) 15 vol% of VRF of class 1 with S, (b) 15 vol% of
VRF of class 2 with S, (c) 15 vol% of VRF class 3 with S, (d) 16 vol% of VRF class 4
with S and (e) pure S (Sand). Error bars represent 1 standard deviation. ................... 43
vii
Figure 3.9. Water retention curve of volcanic rock fragments class 1(), class 2 (), class 3
(x) and class 4 () separated from total mixed samples for experiment 1. Error bars
represent 1 standard deviation. ...................................................................................... 46
Figure 3.10. (a) Simulated grain yield versus actual evapotranspiration (ETa), simulated data
() and trend curve (); (b) Simulated grain yield versus actual transpiration (Ta),
simulated data () and trend line (). .............................................................................. 48
Figure 3.11. Comparison of (a) simulated grain yield, (b) water use efficiency for
transpiration (WUE
Ta
) () and for evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
), () for pure soil versus
soil-VRF mixtures. Error bars represent 1 standard deviation. .................................... 51
Figure 3.12. Simulated grain yield in function of actual evapotranspiration (ETa) for: pure soil
(X), soil-VRF mixture with 15 vol% (), with 30 vol% of VRF, () and trend curve, that
is a third order polynomial as an approximation for logistic function (). ..................... 52
Figure 3.13. Comparison of (a) simulated grain yield, (b) water use efficiency for actual
transpiration (WUE
Ta
) () and for actual evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
) (), for pure sand
versus sand-VRF mixtures (15 vol% of VRF). Error bars represent 1 standard
deviation. .......................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 3.14. Sensitivity analysis, (a) effect of changing water content at field capacity on the
simulated grain yield and (b) on water use efficiency for actual evapotranspiration
(WUE
ETa
). Error bars represent 1 standard deviation. ................................................... 55
Figure 3.15. Sensitivity analysis, (a) effect of changing in water content at permanent wilting
point on the simulated grain yield and (b) on the water use efficiency for actual
evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
). Error bars represent 1 standard deviation..................... 56
Figure A1. Beckman Coulter LS 13 320 laser diffraction particle size. .................................. 70
Figure A2. Differential volume (%) versus particle diameter (um) from Beckman Coulter LS
13 320 laser diffraction particle size, Sibelite
M002 (), SL
1
(), SL
2
(X) and Sand (),
soil used to carry out the WRC of pure soil and soil-VRF mixtures................................ 71
Figure A3. Cumulative volume (%) versus particle diameter (um) from Beckman Coulter LS
13 320 laser diffraction particle size, Sibelite
M002 (), SL
1
(), SL
2
(X) and Sand (),
soils used to carry out the WRC of pure soil and soil-VRF mixtures. ............................. 71
viii
List of tables
Table 2.1. Main characteristics from scoria volcanic rock (Source: USGS, 2004 and
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009)........................................................................................ 8
Table 2.2. Volcanic rocks classified according to size. .............................................................. 9
Table 2.3. Mixes to determine the WRC, experiment 1 and 2 are around 15 and 30 vol%
respectively of each class of VRF mixed with Sibelite
M002, and experiment 3 is

around 15 vol% of each class of VRF mixed with soil types, as well as the soil origin. . 11
Table 2.4. Particle size, bulk density (
b
), particle density (
p
) and chemical characteristics of
Sibelite
M002 (Source: SRC - SIBELCO, nd). .............................................................. 12

Table 2.5. Matrical potential units (Source: Raes, 2004 and SensorsONE Ltd, 2009). ........... 16
Table 2.6. Most important crop inputs and program settings utilised for modeling quinoa. ... 21
Table 2.7. Dependable rainfall for average monthly data based on Rainbow software. .......... 23
Table 2.8. Soil physical characteristics from Irpani 2005-2006 (Source: Geerts et al., 2008b).
.......................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 3.1. Soil texture at three depths in Irpani (mean 1 standard deviation)....................... 26
Table 3.2. Textural class and gravel content in Irpani (mean 1 standard deviation)............. 27
Table 3.3. Bulk density and porosity corresponding to each class of volcanic rock fragment
(mean 1 standard error, N=10). ..................................................................................... 28
Table 3.4. Particle size analysis (texture) for the soil utilised in each experiment, N
(repetitions). Mean 1 standard deviation. ...................................................................... 28
Table 3.5. Comparison of water content at saturation (
SAT
), field capacity (
FC
) and
permanent wilting point (
PWP
) between different soil-VRF mixtures and pure soil
(Sibelite
M002). The letters show significant statistical groups (=0.05), m (mean) se

(standard deviation) and N (repetitions). .......................................................................... 31
Table 3.6. Comparison of volumetric water content at saturation (
SAT
), field capacity (
FC
)
and permanent wilting point (
PWP
) between different soilVRF mixtures and pure soil
(Sibelite
M002). The letters show significant statistical groups ( = 0.05), m (mean), se

(standard deviation) and N (repetitions). .......................................................................... 34
SAT
), field capacity (
FC
)
and permanent wilting point (
PWP
) between soil-VRF mixtures and pure soils. Different
letter means statistical differences (=0.05), N (repetitions). (Mean 1 standard
deviation). ......................................................................................................................... 36
Table 3.8. Total bulk density (
b,t
), bulk density of VRF (
b,rf
) and bulk density of fine earth
(
b,f
) of pure SL
1
and SL
1
- VRF mixtures. (Mean 1 standard deviation, N=4). ........... 39
b,t
b,rf
(
b,f
) of pure SL
2
and SL
2
- VRF mixtures. (Mean 1 standard deviation, N=4). ........... 41
b,t
b,rf
(
b,f
) of pure sand (S) and S-VRF mixtures. (Mean 1 standard deviation, N=4). ......... 44
Table 3.11. Simulated grain yield, water use efficiency for actual transpiration (WUE
Ta
) and
for actual evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
), under rainfed conditions of southern Bolivian
Altiplano (mean 1 standard deviation). ......................................................................... 47
Table 3.12. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K
SAT
) calculated based on soil texture (Sibelite
M002) and volume of VRF (vol%) by means of pedotransfer functions, and soil physical
properties from experiment 1 (E-1) and experiment 2 (E-2). ........................................... 49
ix
Ta
) and
actual evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
) for soil data (Sibelite
M002) from experiment 1 (E-

1) and 2 (E-2), different letter indicates statistical differences ( = 0.05). (Mean 1
standard deviation). .......................................................................................................... 50
Table 3.14. Soil inputs used to carry out the simulation for quinoa production with and
without VRF in the sandy soil (S). ................................................................................... 53
Table 3.15. Comparison of simulated grain yield, water use efficiency for actual transpiration
(WUE
Ta
) and for actual evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
) for sand-VRF mixtures versus pure
sandy soil (S), different letters mean statistical differences (=0.05). (Mean 1 standard
deviation). ......................................................................................................................... 53
Table 3.16. Soil input model to asses the sensitivity analyses to water content at field capacity
(
FC
) and permanent wilting point (
PWP
).* indicates the values changed in comparison
with baseline. .................................................................................................................... 55
Table 3.17. Soil physical characteristics from laboratory and pedotransfer functions for pure
silty loam (SL
1
) and silty loam containing 15 vol% of volcanic rock fragments (VRF). 57
Table 3.18. Comparison of simulated grain yield, for soil inputs from pedotransfer functions
versus laboratory, (mean 1 standard deviation). Different letters means statistical
differences (=0.05; N = 18). ........................................................................................... 58
Table A1. Rainfall and temperatures from Salinas de Garci Mendoza nearby Irpani, between
1975 and 1985 (Source: SENHAMI). .............................................................................. 69
Table A2. Chemical soil properties of soils in Irpani............................................................... 69
Table A3.Total bulk density (
b,t
b,rf
(
b,f
) of pure soil and soil - VRF mixture (Sibelite
M002). ............................................ 70
x
Summary
The southern Bolivian Altiplano is one of the most arid places in this country, with many
climatic constrains, the average rainfall for instance is around 200 mm per year with a huge
inter annual variability. There is the main area of quinoa production worldwide, therefore is
important for the local economy. In the soil of quinoa production is possible to find volcanic
rock fragments (VRF), due to volcanic activity in the past. Because there is not enough
information about the influence of these volcanic rocks on the soil and quinoa yield, the
general objective is to determine the influence of VRF on soil water holding capacity and on
crop water productivity modelling.
The study area is located in Bolivia, specifically in Irpani at 1937 LS, 6743 LW and at
3700 m. a. s. l. Soil samples were collected in order to determine their texture, gravel content
and to categorize the volcanic rocks fragments, in four classes according their size, afterwards
in laboratory the water retention curve of samples composed by 15 and 30 vol% of VRF
mixed with different soil textures were determined. The crop water productivity model was
then used to test its sensitivity to volcanic rock fragments presence in the soil, with calibrated
crop parameters of quinoa, historical climatic data from the agro climatic GIS library of
Geerts et al. (2006), and under rainfed conditions as well as lowfertility.
Depending on the bulk density and volcanic rock fragment content vol%, the simulated grain
yield did not change much, for silty loam soil containing 15 vol% of VRF under conditions of
Bolivian Altiplano, but as the content of volcanic rock fragment increased to around 30 vol%
the reduction of simulated grain yield became significant. This was because of VRF can hold
water at permanent wilting point, which reduces the total available water of soils. The VRF
contented in sandy soils of Irpani ranged from 12 to 30 mass% between 0 and 60 cm of depth.
It can be concluded based on the simulation for sandy soil-VRF mixtures that the grain yield
could be overestimated by around 6 %, if the effect of volcanic rocks on the water retention
curve is not taken into account in AquaCrop.
Keywords: Water holding capacity, volcanic rock fragments, water productivity model,
quinoa, soil-rock fragment mixtures, southern Bolivian Altiplano.
xi
Resumen
El Altiplano sur es uno de los lugares ms ridos en Bolivia, con muchas limitaciones
climticas, la precipitacin media es alrededor de 200 mm por ao con una gran variabilidad
interanual. All es la principal zona de produccin de la quinua a nivel mundial, por lo tanto es
importante para la economa local. En suelos de produccin de quinua es posible encontrar
rocas volcnicas (FRV), debido a actividad volcnica en el pasado. Debido a que no hay
suficiente informacin acerca de la influencia de estas rocas volcnicas sobre el suelo y el
rendimiento de quinoa, el objetivo general es determinar la influencia de FRV en la retencin
de agua en el suelo y sobre modelizacin de la productividad de agua en cultivo.
El rea de estudio es en Bolivia, especficamente en Irpani a 19 37 ' LS, 67 43' LO y 3700
m. s. n. m. Se recogieron muestras de suelo para determinar su textura, su contenido de grava
y clasificar los FRV, en cuatro clases segn su tamao, despus en el laboratorio la curva de
retencin de agua de las muestras compuestas por 15 y 30 vol% de FRV mezclado con
diferentes texturas del suelo se determinaron. Luego, el modelo AquaCrop se utiliz para
probar su sensibilidad a la presencia de rocas volcnica en el suelo, con parmetros calibrados
del cultivo de quinua, datos climticos histricos de la biblioteca agroclimtica-SIG de Geerts
et al. (2006), y bajo condiciones de secano y de baja fertilidad.
Dependiendo de la densidad y el contenido de FRV vol% el rendimiento no cambi mucho,
para suelos franco limosos con 15 vol% de FRV bajo condiciones de altiplano boliviano,
pero como el contenido del FRV increment a alrededor de 30 vol%, la reduccin de
rendimiento simulado se convirti en importante. Debido a que FRV pueden sostener agua a
punto de marchitamiento permanente, reduciendo el total agua disponible en el suelo. El
contenido de FRV en suelos arenosos de Irpani oscila de 12 a 30 peso % entre 0 y 60 cm de
profundidad. Concluyndose, basado en la simulacin de la suelo arenoso-FRV mezclados
que el rendimiento de grano pueden estar sobrestimado por alrededor del 6 %, si el efecto de
las piedras sobre la curva de retencin de agua no se tiene en cuenta en AquaCrop.
Claves: Curva de retencin de humedad, rocas volcnicas, modelizacin de productividad de
agua en cultivos, quinoa, suelo-roca volcnica mezclas, Altiplano sur de Bolivia.
INTRODUCTION
1
CHAPTER I
1 Introduction
The southern Bolivian Altiplano is one of the most arid places in Bolivia. It has special
characteristics such as drought, salinity, frost, hail as is mentioned by many researchers
(Jacobsen and Mujica, 1999; Garcia, 2003; Geerts et. al., 2008a). Despite of these difficult
conditions quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is being produced as the most important
crop. The southern Bolivian Altiplano is the principal area of quinoa production in the entire
world. Therefore it is important for the local economy. Most of local people have quinoa
production as main activity together with the livestock. The soils in this region are between
sandy to loamy sand and with important content of volcanic rocks.
The quinoa production area in the southern Bolivian Altiplano covers part of the Potos and
Oruro departments , with a total area of approximately 37,200 km (Figure 1.1.a) . In this area
volcanic rocks are distributed in the soils (du Bray et al., 1995), because this area has
important concentration of volcanoes, which were active in the past. According to Risacher
and Ritz (1991) during the Plio-Quaternary the western and the southern Altiplano were
indeed strongly affected by an intense volcanic activity. These volcanic rocks are locally
called as pomes (extrusive igneous rocks). They have a specific characteristic, namely its
porosity, which may influence the water holding capacity of soils in the southern Bolivian
Altiplano and in other places of the world. Nevertheless the amount of water that the volcanic
rocks can retain in their pores is often unknown. That is why this investigation intends to
determine the effect of volcanic rocks on the water holding capacity of soil mixed with stones.
In the first steep of the research, volcanic rocks were divided in four classes according to size;
they were mixed with different soil types in order to determine the water retention curve in
the laboratory. In a next step this study focuses on crop water productivity modelling.
Modelling is important, for many advantages such as to save time, money, to be able to
analyse the conjunctive effect of different crops responses to water stress, or to analyze future
scenarios based on validated knowledge. In this sense we also analyzed the under and
INTRODUCTION
2
overestimation of the water holding capacity, especially in soil in which the volcanic rock
content is important, and therefore its influence on water productivity modelling and possible
overestimation of quinoa yields by means of modelling. Figure 1.1.b presents the volcanic
formations in the study area which coincide with the quinoa area production.
(a) (b)
Figure 1.1. (a) Map of Bolivia showing the quinoa area productions in the southern
Bolivian Altiplano and (b) Geological map of the Bolivian Altiplano showing the
volcanic areas formations (Source: adapted from Risacher and Ritz, 1991).
In the first step of the research, volcanic rocks were divided into four classes according to
size. They were mixed with soil (Sibelite
M002) and different soil types, with different

textures in order to determine the water retention curve in the laboratory. In a next step this
study focuses on crop water productivity modelling. Modelling is important, for many
advantages such as to save time, money, to be able to analyse the conjunctive effect of
different crops responses to water stress, or to analyze future scenarios based on validated
knowledge. In this sense we also analyzed the under u over estimation of the water holding
capacity, especially in soil in which the volcanic rock content is important, and therefore its
La Paz
Boli via
Departmetal Li mits
Real Quinoa Area Pr oducti on
N
E W
S
Santa Cruz
Pando
Beni
Cochabamba
Potosi
Tarija
Oruro
Chuquisasa
PERU
CHILE
ARGENTINA
Salt Flats
Sandstones, Claystones, Mudstones, &Shale
Sandstones & Shales
Lakes
Volcanic Formations
Limits
N
E W
S
Ti ticaca Lake
IRPANI
BOLIVIAN ALTIPLANO
INTRODUCTION
3
influence on water productivity modelling and possible misestimating of quinoa yields by
means of modelling.
1.1 Objectives
1.1.1 General Objective
- To investigate the effect of volcanic rocks on the water holding capacity of sandy soils
in the Bolivian Altiplano and the consequences for crop water productivity (CWP)
modelling.
1.1.2 Specific Objectives
- To determine the influence of volcanic rocks fragments (VRF) on the water retention
curve (WRC) of different soil types mixed with volcanic rocks fragments.
- To model and compare the quinoa yield and water use efficiency for soil with and
without volcanic rocks fragments through a CWP modelling, with the model
AquaCrop.
1.2 Outline of the thesis
After introducing the thesis, Chapter II presents materials and methodology. This chapter
describes geographic, climatic and soil features of the study area, the material used at the
laboratory, and methodology of the software that was used.
Chapter III describes the results and discussion of the water retention curve from volcanic
rocks mixed with soil types, the determination of the underestimation u overestimation of the
water holding capacity of a soil with volcanic rocks, and its influence on water productivity
modelling. The estimation of quinoa yields from fields with soil mixed with volcanic rocks is
discussed. Based on the results from chapter III, conclusions and recommendations are
presented in the Chapter IV. At the end of this paper the references as well as annexes are
presented.
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
4
CHAPTER II
2 Materials and methodology
2.1 Field work and laboratory
2.1.1 Study area
The study area is located in Bolivia (South America), specifically in the Irpani community
nearby Salinas de Garci Mendoza in the department of Oruro. Geographically it is located at
1937 latitude south and 6743 longitude west. The altitude is around of 3700 meter above
mean sea level. Figure 2.1 presents the map of South America and Bolivia showing the study
area.
Figure 2.1. Maps of South America and Bolivia showing the study area.
Bolivian
Altiplano
5
2.1.1.1 Climate
The southern Bolivian Altiplano and consequently the Irpani community have an semiarid to
arid climate with many climatic constrains such as drought, frost risk and hail especially in
the summer or austral period (Franois et al., 1999; Delaet, 2006; Geerts et al., 2006; Garcia
et al., 2007; Geerts et al., 2008b).
The historical behaviour of the precipitation and temperature of Salinas de Garci Mendoza (a
community near Irpani) is shown in Figure 2.2 and Table A1 in annexes.
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
J A S O N D J F M A M J
Month
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
C
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
P
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
Pp T min T max T meam
Figure 2.2. Rainfall and temperatures from 10 years (Between 1975 and 1985) in Salinas
de Garci Mendoza nearby Irpani (SENHAMI
1
).
Salinas de Garci Mendoza has an average yearly precipitation of 332 mm. The rainiest month
is January with 112 mm as average. In terms of average temperature the maximum, minimum
and mean temperatures are -1.4 C, 7.8 C and 16.7 C respectively (average between 1975
and 1985). On the other hand, Geerts et al., (2008b) indicate that the precipitation in the study
area is around 210 mm with a huge inter-annual variability. The same researcher mentioned a
total effective rainfall during 20052006 of 385 mm.
1
SENAMHI: Servicio Nacional de Meteorologa e Hidrologa de Bolivia.
6
2.1.1.2 Agriculture
In the study area, quinoa is the only crop that is able to assure a harvest and generate
economic ingresses. In this zone traditional varieties of greater grain size have been
developed known like quinoa Real (Bonifacio, 2001). Figure 2.3 presents the predominant
natural vegetation that constitutes of native pastures such as Festuca ortophilla, Stipa ichu
and tholas such as Baccharia mierophylla, Lepidohilium cuadrangulare (MACA, 1988).
Figure 2.3. Predominant vegetation around Irpani in the southern Bolivian Altiplano
(Source: J. P. Raffaillac, IRD).
In the southern Bolivian Altiplano quinoa is produced as monoculture, the fallow period are
between 1 and 3 years or more (Bottner et al., 2006; after Geerts, 2008). The fields are often
prepared from January to May, during the rainfall period through mechanized systems (Aroni,
2001; Risi, 2001). Quinoa is grown during rainy season which is from September to May
(Geerts, 2008). The sowing period starts from August when the temperature increases until
the middle of November (Aroni, 2001), to take advantage of the soil moisture due to snow in
winter (June to August).
Traditional sowing is done in manually dug sowing pits with interspacing of 1 m to 1.4 m, at
30 cm of depth or more according to soil moisture (Aroni, 2001; Risi, 2001; Debergh, 2007;
Geerts, 2008), nowadays mechanized sowing is being applied. To increase soil fertility, manure
7
of lama and sheep are sometimes applied before of sowing (CICDA-AVSF, 2004; after Debergh,
2007). The cultivated quinua varieties have great grain size with diameters more than 2 mm
(Bonifacio, 2001). Quinoa has a cycle up to 200 days in this area. According to Risi (2001)
the most important pests that affect the quinoa development are rodents and "qhona qhona"
(Eurysacca quinoae).
The harvesting is done manually and either the entire plants are extracted including the roots
(Risi, 2001) or they are cut just of the field surface, afterward they are staked in the field to
dry. Consequently the grain is separated by means of machinery or naturally, and then they
are brought to industrial plants to extract the saponins from the grains (Geerts, 2008).
2.1.2 Data collection
2.1.2.1 Soil samples for determining the soil physical characteristics
The soil samples were collected from a cropped field with quinoa by the project Red
Quinoa (IRD, 2009). The soil samples come from an experiment under randomized block
design, and the crop was sown in September of agricultural cycle 2004-2005. 12 soil samples
were collected at three depths 0-20 cm, 20-40 cm and 40- 60 cm, each soil sample weighing 1
kg. These samples were sent to be analysed at the INRA (Institute National de Recherches
Agronomiques - Laboratoire dAnalyses de Sols dArras France). At INRA physical analysis
of the soil was performed in order to determine the soil texture (mass%). The texture was
determined by sieving and the pipette method; procedure NF X 31-107 (Association
Franaise de Normalisation, 1994). Also chemical analysis was performed to determine the
organic mater (O.M.), pH, electrical conductivity (E.C.); cations exchange capacity (C.E.C),
Phosphorus (P
2
O
5
), Nitrogen (N), Magnesium (Mg), Potassium (K) and Sodium (Na).
2.1.2.2 Soil samples for determining the gravel content (mass%)
During the agricultural cycle of 2005-2006, 12 soil samples were collected from 0-20 cm, 20-
40 cm and 40-60 cm of depth by Red Quinoa project (IRD, 2009) in Irpani from fields
cropped with quinoa. These samples were sent to be analysed at IBTEN (Instituto Boliviano
de Ciencia y Tecnologa Nuclear). The soil texture was determined by the method of the
8
Hydrometer of Bouyoucos (sedimentation), and the particles of sand, silt and clay were
calculated in mass percentage. The gravel content was determined by weighing the amount of
particles that did not cross the mesh of the sieve of 2 mm, that is to say, particles greater than
2 mm.
2.1.2.2.1 Classifying the volcanic rocks
According to Gardiner and Miller (2004) as well as USGS (2004), the extrusive or volcanic
igneous rocks (Figure 2.4) are produced when magma exits and cools outside of, or very near
the earth's surface.
Figure 2.4. Volcanic rock (Source: Gyllenhaal, 2001).
General characteristics such as chemical properties, texture and colour of volcanic rocks are
presented in the Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. Main characteristics from scoria volcanic rock (Source: USGS, 2004 and
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009).
Name of the rock: Scoria
Basic type: Volcanic rock
Group: Igneous
Structure: It has many forms, manly prolonged and angular
Chemical
composition:
Composed of trioxide of silica and aluminium trioxide,
among other components
Texture: Porous, spongy or frothy with many hollows and
cavities, large and thick vesicles walls
Specific gravity
(relative density):
Greater than 1 g cm
-3
Colour: Greyish, ash-gray, dark brown, black and red
9
During the agricultural season of 2004-2005, 10 soil samples were collected from a depth
between 0 and 30 cm, each soil sample had a weight of around 3 kilos and they were sieved in
order to separate the particles greater than 2.0 mm. Afterwards they were separated with an
automatic device in four classes according to size (Table 2.2). These four classes were chosen
because only these size sieves were available at the laboratory (IRD-CLIFA laboratory
Viacha, Bolivia). The volcanic rocks from these samples were used for the determination of
the water retention curve of soil-rock mixtures.
Table 2.2. Volcanic rocks classified according to size.
Classes Diameter (mm)
Class 1 2.0-3.15
Class 2 3.15-4.5
Class 3 4.5-8.0
Class 4 > 8.0
2.1.3 Laboratory procedure for soil water retention curve (WRC) determination
All laboratory measurements were performed at the Laboratory of Soil and Water
Management in the geo-institute, K.U. Leuven (Department of Earth and Environmental
Sciences).
2.1.3.1 Volume, Bulk density and Porosity of volcanic rocks
The volume of the rocks was calculated based on the Archimedes principle (Figure 2.5), for
each size class of volcanic rock fragment. Because of the porosity of the volcanic rocks they
were soaked for 72 hour prior to measure their volume. Archimedes principle states that the
volume of fluid displaced is equal to the volume of the portion of the object submerged
(Britannica Encyclopaedia, 2009). Tubes of 50 cc, 100 cc, and 200 cc of volume, scales of 0.1
and 0.001 of precision, and oven dryer were utilised.
Bulk densities of volcanic rocks were determined based on the following equation.
10
rf
rf
rf b
V
M
=
,
[g cm
-3
] Eq. 2.1
Where the
b,rf
is the bulk density of volcanic rock fragments, M
rf
is mass of volcanic rock
fragments dried at 105 C during 24 hours and V
rf
is the volume of the volcanic rocks.
Figure 2.5: Determination of volume with Archimedes principle (Source: Rubin J.,
2008).
The porosity (n) is the ratio of the volume of the pores to the bulk volume of the soil (Raes,
2004). It was calculated, based on equation 2.2 proposed by Carter and Ball (1990); after
Descheemaeker (2006).
rf p
rf b
rf
n
,
,
1
= [m
3
m
-3
] Eq. 2.2
Where n
rf
[m
3
m
-3
] is the rock fragment porosity and,
p,rf
[g cm
-3
] is the rock fragment particle
density. According to Raes (2004) for
p,rf
a value of 2.65 g cm
-3
can be assumed.
2.1.3.2 Experiments to determine water retention curve (WRC) between volcanic
rock fragments (VRF) and soil types
Once, the volume of the volcanic rocks fragments (VRF) was determined, and taken into
account that the kopecky ring volume was 100 cm
3
; the amount of soil for every sample was
11
calculated by subtracting from 100 cc the volume of the rock. This volume of soil was
converted in mass units for a bulk density of 1.23 g cm
-3
. Afterwards the volcanic rocks and
soil were mixed to be filled inside of kopecky rings by hand, for continuing with the water
retention curve experiments. In other words we mixed the samples so that the bulk density of
the soil was at known value. This was mainly important for the soil (Sibelite
M002), because
it was reported that its water retention changes a lot with differences in settling (Bulk
density).
The procedure for WRC determination was performed for the following combinations
between volcanic rocks and soil types (Table 2.3). The numbers of blank samples were 5, 7,
and 4 respectively for experiment 1, 2 and 3, for soil type.
Table 2.3. Mixes to determine the WRC, experiment 1 and 2 are around 15 and 30 vol%
respectively of each class of VRF mixed with Sibelite
M002, and experiment 3 is around

15 vol% of each class of VRF mixed with soil types, as well as the soil origin.
Experiment
Volcanic rock fragment
(VRF) class
Samples
N
VRF (vol%)
(m s e)*
Soil
type and origin
Class 1 10 17.0 1.0
Class 2 10 14.0 1.0
Class 3 10 14.0 1.0
1
Class 4 7 17.0 4.0
Class 1 5 31.0 2.0
Class 2 5 30.0 2.0
Class 3 5 29.0 2.0
2
Class 4 5 25.0 2.0
Silty loam soil
(Sibelite
M002)
SIBELCO
Class 1 4 16.0 0.4
Class 2 4 15.0 0.2
Class 3 4 15.0 0.2
Class 4 4 16.0 1.0
Silty loam soil
SL
1
Leuven
Class 1 4 16.0 0.2
Class 2 4 16.0 0.1
Class 3 4 17.0 0.2
Class 4 4 16.0 1.0
Silty loam soil
SL
2
Bruges
Class 1 4 15.0 0.4
Class 2 4 15.0 0.4
Class 3 4 15.0 1.0
3
Class 4 4 16.0 1.0
Sandy soil
S
Mol
* m= mean or average; se= standard deviation
12
2.1.3.3 Soil characteristics (Sibelite
M002)
The soil from SCR-SIBELCO that was first used in the study is called Sibelite
M002.
According to SCR-SIBELCO (nd) this material is high-purity silica produced from
cristobalite by iron-free grinding and accurate sieving by means of air-separators.
Granulometric data, physical characteristics as well as chemical analysis are presented in
Table 2. 4.
Table 2.4. Particle size, bulk density (
b
), particle density (
p
) and chemical
characteristics of Sibelite
M002 (Source: SRC - SIBELCO, nd).

Feature Value Unit Method
Control sieve > 63 m
D10
D50
D90
b
Specific surface
pH
SiO
2
Fe
2
O
3
Al
2
O
3
TiO
2
K
2
O
CaO
45
9
70
200
2.40
1.05
0.5
9
99.5
0.03
0.20
0.03
0.05
0.01
%
m
m
m
g cm
-3
g cm
-3
m
2
g
-1
-
%
%
%
%
%
%
Alpine
Malvern MS 2000
Malvern MS 2000
Malvern MS 2000
-
-
BET
-
XRF
XRF
XRF
XRF
XRF
XRF
D50 is defined as the grain diameter at which 50 % of the particles are finer
than. Particle sizes D10 and D90 are associated with 10 % and 90 % finer than,
XRF
: X-ray Fluorescence method; BET: Brunauer, Emmett and Teller method.

2.1.3.4 Origin of soil and particle size
The soils used for determining the WRC of mixtures (experiments 3) came from Mol which is
a municipality located in the province of Antwerp, from the region of Bruges in the province
of West Flanders and the fields located in Leuven in the province of Flemish Brabant in
Belgium. In order to determine the soil texture, samples were sent to be analysed at the
laboratory of Soil and Water Management at Geo-Institute, K.U. Leuven. The particle size
analysis was determined based on a Beckman Coulter LS 13 320 laser diffraction particle size
13
(Figure 1A of annexes), that posses a bench as well as universal liquid module, in order to
determine the size particles, they must be suspended in water at 20 C (Manek et al., 2005).
2.1.3.5 Soil water retention
The total soil-water potential of the constituent water in soil at temperature T
0
is the amount
of useful work per unit quantity of pure water that must be done by means of externally
applied forces to transfer reversibly and isothermally an infinitesimal amount of water from
the standard state to the soil liquid phase at the point under consideration. (Bolt, 1976; after
Jury and Horton, 2004). The components of soil water potential are the following:
n h m o g t
+ + + + = Eq. 2.3
Where
t
[m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
] is the total water potential;
g
[m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
] is the gravitational
potential determined by the location of the point under consideration relative to the reference
level;
o
[m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
] is the osmotic potential due to the presence of solutes in the soil
solution;
m
[m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
] is the matric potential that is related with the forces by which the
water is held in the soil matrix;
h
[ m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
] is the hydrostatic potential applied only
when the soil is saturated, and the pneumatic potential
n
[m
2
s
-1
kgm
-3
] results from external
gas pressure applied to the water (Young and Sisson, 2002; after Baetens, 2007).
2.1.3.5.1 Water content
To quantify the water content in soils, it can be done in two different units, as volumetric
water content and gravimetric water content
m
(Jury and Horton, 2004). The next equations
were used to calculate
m
and :
soil dry of mass
water of mass
m
= u [kg kg
-1
] Eq. 2.4
m
w
t b
u
u
,
= [m
3
m
-3
] Eq. 2.5
Where
b,t
[kg m
-3
] is the total bulk density and
w
[kg m
-3
] is the water density. According to
Brakensiek (1986); after Baetens (2007), several equations can describe the relation between
14
the bulk densities of particles less than 2.0 mm and rock fragments particles greater than 2.0
mm.
( )
rf b v f b v t b
R R
, , ,
1 + = [kg m
-3
] Eq. 2.6
m
v
f b t b
R
R
=
1
1
, ,
[kg m
-3
] Eq. 2.7
Where
b,t
[kg m
-3
] is the total soil bulk density, which includes particles < 2.0 mm and rock
fragments,
b,f
[kgm
-3
] is the particles < 2.0 mm bulk density (fine earth), R
m
[kg kg
-1
] is the
rock fragments content in terms of mass, R
v
[m
3
m
-3
] is the rock fragment in terms of volume
and
b,rf
[kgm
-3
] is the bulk density of rock fragments.
The bulk density of particles < 2.00 mm, the rock fragment content by mass or by volume can
be calculated based in the followings formulas:
rf t
f
f b
V V
M
=
,
[kg m
-3
] Eq. 2.8
Where M
f
[kg] is the mass of particles <2.0 mm, V
t
[m
3
] is the total soil volume including
rock fragments and V
rf
[m
3
] is the volume of rock fragments.
t
rf
v
V
V
R = [m
3
m
-3
] Eq. 2.9
t
rf
m
M
M
R = [kg kg
-1
] Eq. 2.10
Where M
rf
[kg] is the mass of rock fragments, and M
t
[kg] is the total mass soil, in which fine
earth plus rock fragment are included (Child and Flint, 1990; after Baetens, 2007).
2.1.3.5.2 Soil water retention curve
The soil WRC describes the relation between the water content and the matric potential (
m
),
this curve is important because it gives information on the water available for plants (Raes,
2004). The water content described by soil WRC ranges between water content at saturation
(
SAT
) and the water content at air dryer. Due to laboratory limitations, we only measured
until permanent wilting point (
PWP
).
15
The shape of soil WRC depends on the soil texture (Figure 2.6) and structure. For instance,
fine textured soil as clay strongly retain water and as a result have more water because of its
high specific surface (Raes, 2004). On the other hand, sandy soils have much largest pores
that drain at modest suctions (Jury and Horton, 2004), furthermore the specific surface is
smaller than the clay soils.
Figure 2.6. Soil water holding capacity for different soil texture classes (Source:
http://www.nivaa.nl/explorer/pagina/pictures/pfcurvey.jpg).
Two points are quite important in relation with the water holding capacity of the soil for
plants. These are: the field capacity (FC), which is the maximum water content that a soil will
hold after to be well drained for a few days. The water content at FC depends of the soil type,
but values between pF 2.0 and pF 2.5 are suggested as
m
at FC (Romano and Santini, 2002).
And, the permanent wilting point (PWP) that is defined as the soil water content at which the
leaves of sunflower plants wilt permanently, in general is assumed at pF 4.2 ( Raes, 2004;
Bohne, 2005; after Baetens, 2007).
According to Jury and Horton (2004) the relationship between matrical potential and water
content is not unique in a given soil because of the hysteresis; it means that
m
and can
follow a different wetting and drying curve. The water potential and
m
can be measured in
varied units, Table 2.5 shows the most common units.
16
Table 2.5. Matrical potential units (Source: Raes, 2004 and SensorsONE Ltd, 2009).
Volumetric water potential Head
Energy per unit of volume Energy per unit of head
bar Kpa Kgf cm
-2
cmH
2
O pF (Log cmH
2
O)
-0.10 -10.0 0.10 102.00 2.0
-0.33 -33.20 0.34 339.90 2.5
-15.00 -1549.40 15.30 15800.0 4.2
The conversion factor from energy per unit of volume to head is 1/(
w
g)
w
=1000 kg m
-3
; g=9.81m s
-2
2.1.3.6 Procedure for pF 0 2
In order to quantify the WRC for the points corresponding to pF 0 until 2, a device was used
that is called sand box (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.7. 08.01 Sandbox (Source: Aquagri, 2007).
In the kopecky rings we fixed a piece of cloth at the bottom side of the sample with an elastic-
band, and were filled with the mixed samples of volcanic rocks fragments and soil, with
repetitions for every class (Table 2.3). Samples with pure soil were also added to determine
the WRC of the soil without rocks (blank samples). After filling of the kopecky rings, they
were saturated during 3 to 7 days according to the soil texture. The suction regulator was slid
down to 0 cm (pF 0) and it was left during a week. After a week the rings were carefully taken
17
out of the device and were weighed (balance with 0.01g of precision). The same procedure
was followed for the points of pF 0.5 (3.2 cm), 1.0 (10 cm), 1.5 (32 cm) and 1.8 (63 cm) until
reach pF 2.0 (100 cm).
2.1.3.7 Procedure for pF 2.3 to 2.8
For measuring the pF points from 2.3 till 2.8 a device called low pressure chamber (Figure
2.8) was utilised, together with ceramic plates of 1 bar. The ceramic plates were soaked for a
period of three days prior to use. Afterwards, soil samples that came from the previous point
(sand box) were placed on the ceramic plates with a layer of soil and were introduced inside
the pressure chamber, under a constant pressure of 0.2 bar during a week. After that time, the
samples were weighed. The same process was followed for the remaining point pF 2.8 (0.62
bar). Afterwards the samples were oven dried at 105 C during 1 day in order to get the oven
dry weight of every sample.
Figure 2.8. Low pressure chamber (Source: Alfredo Veizaga).
2.1.3.8 Procedure for pF 3.4 to 4.2
In order to determine the WRC for the 3.4 and 4.2 pF points, the total samples were divided in
two parts for each point respectively. Afterwards, the samples were soaked in bottle during 3
to 7 days depending of soil texture, and the ceramic plates of 15 bar as well. Since the
18
samples were saturated, they were filled up in specially fabricated rings (PVC rings with
diameter of 7.1 cm and 2.6 cm of height). These special sample rings were created to limit the
sample height for the case of mixes (soil and volcanic rock fragment), and for pure soil
normal rings were utilised. Then the samples were placed on the ceramic plate, and they were
introduced to the pressure chamber at constant pressure during 7 days (Figure 2.9).
After 7 days in the pressure chamber at 2.5 bar. The samples were weighed and placed in the
oven dry at 105 C during 1 day to determine the dry weight. The same procedure of
saturating, pressuring and drying was performed for determining the water content of pF 4.2.
For experiments 2 and 3 only the pF 4.2 were performed, due to the long stabilization time of
each pressure.
Figure 2.9. High pressure chamber and special rings (Source: Alfredo Veizaga).
2.1.3.9 Statistical analysis
In order to compare the water content at SAT, FC, and PWP among mixes of each volcanic
rock fragment class and pure soil for the experiments. ANOVA analysis and Duncan multiple
comparison tests were performed to assess differences among average values. The statistical
19
analyses were performed based on SAS 9.2 statistical package (SAS, 2007). And the
significance levels were =0.05 percent.
2.1.4 WRC separation of volcanic rock and WRC of soil from mixed samples
In order to get a generic relation (pedo-transfer functions) for the determination of the WRC
of soil-rock fragment mixtures, with the data obtained in the experiment 1 (Table 2.3), we
tried to separate the water content at different suction heads for each class of volcanic rock
fragment from the mixes (soil plus volcanic rock fragments), given that the bulk density of
each volcanic rock fragment class and the pure soil were already known before mixing them.
We tried to do the separation based on the WRC for pure soil. We assumed that the soil part
of the mixes should have the same water content for each pF point as the pure soil (blank
samples) as the samples were prepared to have a constant
b
for the soil fraction. Then, the
total water content by volume (water content of the volcanic rocks and the soil) was
calculated for each pF point. From these values the water content of the pure soil part was
subtracted respecting the total volume of the volcanic rock fragment. In this way we tried to
obtain the WRC only for volcanic rocks fragments.
20
2.2 Aqua-Crop modelling
In order to develop the modelling part the new version of crop water productivity model
AquaCrop (version 3.0) was utilised (Steduto et al., 2009; Raes et al., 2009a; Raes et al.,
2009b). 18 years were simulated; first for local sandy soil without takes into account the
volcanic rock fragments, afterwards for the soil results obtained in the laboratory (Section
2.1.3) for pure soils as well as each class of soil-VRF mixtures. This is to check whether the
VRF have an important effect on final yield simulation, because the position of rock
fragments in the soil may have large influence on the internal drainage and water retention
(Prez, 1998). Furthermore, rock fragments as mulch can reduce evaporation and runoff
(Kemper et al., 1994; after Cousin et al., 2003; Kosmas et al., 1998). On the other hand, if the
evaporation is high, the rock fragments instead of reducing the evaporation increase it,
because of their high calorific feature (Cousin et al., 2003), as explained before.
2.2.1 Model Inputs
2.2.1.1 Climatic data
The historical daily rainfall and monthly evapotranspiration was obtained from the
Agroclimatic GIS library of Geerts et al. (2006). 18 years historical daily rainfall of Rio
Mulatos, which is a located at 1941 LS, 6646 LW and 3815 m. a. s. l. (Geerts, 2008)
nearby Irpani, and the average monthly evapotranspiration from 25-30 years. Since the direct
effect of the temperature on the quinoa development was not analysed in detail, it was not
used in the model.
2.2.1.2 Crop data
The AquaCrop model was released with the quinoa crop parameters already calibrated based
on the calibration carried out by Geerts et al. (2009a). Further adjustments were carried out by
Geerts (unpublished data, 2009). From adjusted parameters, some calendar parameters for
southern Bolivian Altiplano were adjusted, because the crop cycle is around 200 or more
calendar days (Risi, 2001; Geerts, 2008). The most important crop inputs and program
settings are presented in Table 2.6.
21
Table 2.6. Most important crop inputs and program settings utilised for modeling
quinoa.
Crop input Value
Upper Lower
P
exp
: Soil water depletion factor for canopy expansion (-)
0.50 0.80
P
sto
: Soil water depletion fraction for stomatal control (-) 0.60
P
sen
: Soil water depletion factor for canopy senescence(-) 0.98
Sum (ETo) during stress period to be exceeded before senescence is
triggered (-)
200
Soil fertility stress at calibration (%) 50
Z
n
: Minimum effective rooting depth (m) 0.30
Z
x
: Maximum effective rooting depth (m) 1.00
Time from sowing to emergence (Calendar Days) 7.0
Time from sowing to maximum rooting depth(Calendar Days) 83
Time from sowing to start senescence(Calendar Days) 173
Time from sowing to maturity (Calendar days) 200
Time from sowing to flowering (Calendar days) 115
WP*:Water productivity normalized for ETo and CO
2
(g m
-2
) 10.4
Water productivity normalized for ETo and CO2 during yield
formation (as % WP*)
90
HI
o
: Reference harvest index (%) 50
According to Geerts (2008); Geerts et al. (2008a), the model was calibrated for experimental
condition (with a good quinoa seed as well as pest management), that for farmers conditions
rarely happen. Given this condition, from the total yield (Y) 25 % should be subtracted, in
order to have the farmer yields (Geerts, pers. comm., 2009). The start growing cycle was set
for September 15
th
for each simulated year.
2.2.1.3 Management data: the fertility effect on water productivity
To run the simulation in management component of AquaCrop model, the file soil fertility
level was fixed to poor conditions, because the native soil fertility in the southern Bolivian
Altiplano is very low, according to Fleming and Galwey (1995); after Bosque et al. (2003)
and Geerts et al. (2008b). AquaCrop works with a normalized water productivity (WP*) in
order to calculate the above ground biomass (B). The WP* of a crop can be classified
according to its physiological photosynthesis pathway (Raes et al., 2009a). Quinoa is a C3
plant (Figure 2.10) as reported by many researchers (Jensen et al., 2000; Jacobsen et al., 2003;
Bois et al., 2006; Geerts, 2008).
22
Figure 2.10. Above ground biomass production (B) in function of T
a
/ET
o
, showing the
biomass water productivity WP
b
for C3 group crops and WP for quinoa under low soil
fertility (dotted line), (Source: Adapted from Raes et al., 2009a).
The above ground biomass or dry above ground biomass (B) of the crop is linear with
T
a
/ET
o
, and the slope of this relation is the biomass water productivity (WP
b
). In the Figure
2.10 the dotted line shows that when the soil fertility is low this relation is linear until certain
point after that became no linear, because of the reduction of the soil nutrients, even if the
water content in the soil is high (Heng et al., 2007; Geerts, 2008) and according to Raes et al.
(2009a) the nutrient reservoir depletes while the crop develops, therefore in the model the
consequence of soil fertility on the adjustment of WP is not linear during the entire season.
All the simulations were done for rainfed (RF) conditions.
2.2.1.4 Soil data
The soil input that AquaCrop needs, are soil physical properties such as volumetric water
content at saturation (
SAT
), volumetric water content at FC (
FC
), volumetric water content at
PWP (
PWP
) and saturated hydraulic conductivity (K
SAT
). These inputs can be obtained from
the AquaCrop data according to soil texture, or the users can create new files with their own
laboratory data (Raes et al., 2009a).
The initial water content is a very sensitive parameter (Geerts et al., 2009a), and it depends of
the soil water accumulation during the preceding fallow year for rainfed conditions (Raes et
23
al., 2009a; Geerts et al., 2009a). Frequency analysis was carried out for the yearly rainfall data
with the RAINBOW program (Raes et al., 2006) for yearly rainfall data (18 years), according
to procedure proposed by Raes (2004); Raes and Geerts (2008), Table 2.7 presents the
dependable rainfall found, to classify the follow years into 3 classes.
Table 2.7. Dependable rainfall for average monthly data based on Rainbowsoftware.
*PE (%) Year Dependable rainfall (mm year
-1
)
20 Wet 378
50 Normal 230
80 Dry 132
*PE: probability of exceedance
When the annual rainfall of previous year to be simulated felt above the normal rainfall 230
mm, the initial soil water moisture was set at 60 % of the totally available water (TAW), but if
it was less than 230 mm it was set at 50 % of the TAW.
2.2.2 Sensitivity analysis of the model to different soil physical properties
A sensitivity analysis of soil physical properties was done, to analyse how changes in these
inputs affects the simulated outputs. According to Beven (2001), as cited by Jacquin and
Shamseldin (2009), sensitivity analysis gives a measurement of the sensitivity of a quantity Y
under examination to small changes in the model parameters, with respect to some chosen
values.
2.2.2.1.1 Simulation for local sandy soil (from southern Bolivian Altiplano)
For these simulations, Table 2.8 presents the soil physical characteristics that were calculated
base on suction table and pressure plate methods for the case of WRC, and for K
SAT
it was
obtained in situ by means of the double ring infiltration apparatus (Geerts et al., 2008b). The
thickness of the soil was set at 1.2 m, the readily evaporable water (REW) as 7 mm and the
curve number (CN) 70, because K
SAT
is 720 greater than 250 mm day
-1
for each simulated
case and the initial soil water content (ISWC) was set at 50 % and 60 % of total available
water (TAW), that are around to antecedent moisture class (AMC) II (Raes et al., 2009a).
24
Table 2.8. Soil physical characteristics from Irpani 2005-2006 (Source: Geerts et al.,
2008b).
Thickness (m)
SAT
(vol%)
FC
(vol%)
PWP
(vol%) K
SAT
(mm day
-1
)
0.20 53.9 20.5 5.2 720.0
0.20 51.3 22.4 4.9 720.0
0.60 52.4 22.4 6.9 720.0
M002)
These simulations were performed with data (WRC) obtained from experiments 1 and 2
(Table 2.3). The K
SAT
for pure soil (Sibelite
M002) as well as for soil-VRF mixtures were

found through pedotransfer function (Saxton and Rawls, 2006), based on the soil texture
analysis and VRF content vol%. The thickness of the soil was set at 1 m of depth, the readily
evaporable water as 7 mm and the curve number 70.
2.2.2.1.3 Simulations for WRC of sand-VRF mixtures and pure sand
For these simulations, WRC for sand from experiment 3 (Table 2.3) was used. The initial soil
water content was set at FC or 100 % of TAW in order for the model simulates yields above
0.0 Mg ha
-1
, given that the values of 50 % and 60 % of TAW were very low and the grain
yield was always 0.0 Mg ha
-1
. With the purpose of get K
SAT
for pure soil and soil-VRF
mixtures, pedotransfer function (Saxton and Rawls, 2006) were used, based on the soil texture
and the VRF content vol%. The thickness of the soil was set at 1 m, the readily evaporable
water as 7 mm and the curve number 70.
2.2.2.1.4 Sensitivity analysis of the model to water content at field capacity and permanent
wilting for Sibelite
M002 soil
The sensitivity analysis was carried out for soil (Sibelite
M002). It was done in order to asses

how sensitive is the model to maximum and minimum values of
FC
as well as
PWP
, these
values were found from experiment 1 and 2 considering mixed samples. And the average of
SAT
,
FC
and
PWP
were calculated considering only pure soil (to be considered as a baseline).
K
SAT
was obtained by means of pedotransfer functions (Saxton and Rawls, 2006) and taking
25
into consideration the soil texture. The thickness of the soil was set at 1 m, the readily
evaporable water as 7 mm and the curve number 70.
data of pedotransfer functions
In order to compare the laboratory data versus results obtained with pedotransfer functions,
SL
1
(silty loam soil collected from Leuven) based on particle size distribution and a 15 vol%
gravel contend, the
SAT
,
FC
and
PWP
was determined by means of pedotransfer function
(Saxton and Rawls, 2006). Afterwards, sensitivity analysis of AquaCrop was carried out for
using these inputs from pedotransfer functions. The simulated grain yield from data of
pedotransfer function was compared with the average of SL
1
-VRF mixtures composed by
each size class with 15 vol% of VRF from laboratory. The thickness of the soil was set at 1
m, REW as 7 mm and the CN 70.
2.2.3 Water use efficiency (WUE) and statistical analysis
From all different simulations the WUE was calculated. The WUE is also known as water
productivity (WP), WUE is defined as the ratio of the mass of economically valuable yield
(Y
a
) in [Mg ha
-1
] and the volume consumed by the crop (ET
a
) in [m
3
ha
-1
] (Hatfield et al.,
2001; Geerts and Raes, 2009; Raes et al., 2009a)
a
a
ET
ET
Y
WUE = [kg m
-3
] Eq. 2.11
The WUE can be represent for the crop transpiration
a
a
T
T
Y
WUE = [kg m
-3
] Eq. 2.12
Where: T
a
[m
3
] is the actual crop transpiration.
In order to assess the effect of volcanic rock fragments on the crop yield, WUE
ET
and WUE
T,
simulation for blank samples (pure soil) and soil-VRF mixtures were compared statistically
by means of pairwise T student test (Willems, 2007) in the SPSS statistical software.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
26
CHAPTER III
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Field work and laboratory
3.1.1 Data collection
3.1.1.1 Soil samples for determining the soil physical characteristics
According to the soil analysis done by INRA, the average soil texture until a depth of 60 cm
is loamy sand as shown in Table 3.1. These results coincide with the textural classes reported
by Geerts et al. (2008b) who reported a soil texture between loamy sand and sandy loam.
Table 3.1. Soil texture at three depths in Irpani (mean 1 standard deviation).
Depth Clay Fine silt Large silt Fine sand Large sand Textural
(cm)
< 2 m
(%)
2-20 m
(%)
20-50 m
(%)
50-200 m
(%)
200-2000 m
(%)
Class
0-20 4.1 0.3 3.5 0.2 4.5 1.7 34.6 8.1 53.4 10.2 Sand
20-40 5.3 0.5 6.3 0.5 6.6 1.1 36.6 3.0 45.2 3.8 Loamy Sand
40-60 7.3 0.4 9.0 1.6 10.3 0.3 26.6 3.6 46.8 4.5 Sandy Loam
The chemical characteristics are presented in the Table A2 of the annexes, where pH is
slightly alkaline corresponding with Gardiner and Raymond (2004). With respect to natural
soil fertility, the soil has around 0.35 % organic matter, the phosphorus content (P
2
O
5
) 0.03 g
kg
-1
and total N content 0.17 g kg
-1
, according the soil analysis reported by Manu et al. (1991)
for semiarid conditions and sandy soil of Africa, these values are very low. Based on this
information, the conclusion is that the natural soil fertility is low. Previous investigation such
as, Fleming and Galwey (1995), cited by Bosque et al. (2003) and Geerts et al. (2008b) also
reported this result.
3.1.1.2 Soil samples for determining the gravel content
The soil physical analysis done by IBTEN is presented in Table 3.2, in which the gravel
content of the soil of Irpani varies from 13.2 to 29.1 mass% according to the depth. The
gravel content increases with the depth, given that between 40 cm and 60 cm the value is
27
around 30 %. On the other hand, the textural class of the soil in each soil layer is sandy loam,
which was also found in the analysis done by INRA (Table 3.1).
Table 3.2. Textural class and gravel content in Irpani (mean 1 standard deviation).
Depth Clay Silt Sand Gravel Textural
(cm) (%) (%) (%) (%) Class
0-20 16.3 1.2 10.0 4.6 73.7 4.9 13.2 1.3 Sandy loam
20-40 17.3 1.5 9.0 6.6 73.7 7.4 20.6 15.5 Sandy loam
40-60 17.0 2.0 3.3 2.5 79.7 4.5 29.1 6.6 Sandy loam
The position of gravel (rock fragment) in the soil has large influence on the soil water content,
because it can affect the internal drainage, water retention and evaporation at the soil (Prez,
1998). According to Kemper et al. (1994), after Cousin et al. (2003); Xiao-Yan (2002), rock
fragments applied as mulch on the soil reduced the water evaporation and runoff. On the other
hand, Cousin et al. (2003) state that if there is high evaporation, rock fragments instead of
reducing the evaporation increase it, because of their high calorific feature.
3.1.2 Laboratory results for soil water retention curve (WRC) determination
3.1.2.1 Volume, Bulk density and Porosity of volcanic rocks
Table 3.3 shows the results of bulk density and porosity corresponding to four size classes of
volcanic rock fragments. The bulk density of individual volcanic rock fragments ranges from
0.88 g cm
-3
to 2.03 g cm
-3
. Rust et al. (1999) found that the bulk density varied between 0.54
and 2.90 g cm
-3
for many types of volcanic rocks. The same researcher reported for volcanic
rocks of Mauna Ulu (Hawaii), values from 1.27 to 1.49 g cm
-3
that are close to the values
found.
The porosity values found in this study are low in comparison to the values reported by Rust
et al. (1999) with ranges between 0.50 and 0.59, but, these values were found with a more
precise method to measure the porosity (helium pycnometer).
28
Table 3.3. Bulk density and porosity corresponding to each class of volcanic rock
fragment (mean 1 standard error, N=10).
Classes Bulk density (g cm
-3
) Porosity (-)
Class 1 (2.0 - 3.15 mm) 1.50 0.10 0.44 0.04
Class 2 (3.15- 4.5 mm) 1.76 0.16 0.34 0.06
Class 3 (4.5- 8.0 mm) 1.82 0.10 0.31 0.04
Class 4 (> 8.0 mm) 1.58 0.35 0.40 0.13
There is also a difference in bulk density among classes, where the smallest diameters of
volcanic rock (class 1) present less value of bulk density and high porosity. This difference
may be explained by the weathering stage according to Childs and Flint (1990) the smaller the
rock fragments, the more weathered. Furthermore, Descheemaeker (2006) states that smallest
rock fragments underwent intense weathering processes and as result increment of porosity.
But a thing that does not agree with this theory is the fact that the volcanic rock fragments
greater than 8 mm of diameter (class 4) have in average high porosity as the smaller volcanic
rock fragment group (class 1).
3.1.2.2 WRC of different soil VRF mixtures
3.1.2.2.1 Soil particle size of the fine earth (mixed samples)
The particle size analysis carried out with the Beckman Coulter LS 13 320 laser diffraction
particle size analyzer is presented in Table 3.4. The soil collected from Mol has a textural
class of sand. While the soil collected from Leuven, Bruges and Sibelite
M002 of Sibelco
have as textural class which is silty loam, but with different percentages of sand, silt and clay.
Table 3.4. Particle size analysis (texture) for the soil utilised in each experiment, N
(repetitions). Mean 1 standard deviation.
Particle size
(FAO)
Mol
(N=2)
Leuven
(N=2)
Bruges
(N=2)
Sibelite
M002
(N=1)
Sand (%) 99.5
0.04
22.2 0.52 25.1
0.54
43.2
Silt (%) 0.2
0.03
69
0.52
60.4
1.30
51.4
Clay (%) 0.3
0.01
8.8
0.02
14.5
0.80
5.5
Textural class Sand Silty Loam Silty Loam Silty Loam
29
(Sibelite M002)
The WRC for experiment 1 are presented in the Figure 3.1, in which, one can observe the
effect of volcanic rocks on the water holding capacity of the soil. Please note that the value of
pF 2.0 may be loss precise due to a failure of the sand box at this suction, the difference in
content between soilVRF mixture and pure soil are greater, mainly at 0.0, 0.4, 1.0, 1.5, 1.8,
and 2.0 pF pressure suction points. These differences could be caused by the increment of
drainage, when VRF are present in the soil as is mentioned by van Wesemael et al. (1995)
who states that the reduction of could be explained by the increment in drainage and limited
retention capacity of moisture in stony soils because of macropores.
(a) (b)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0. 10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0. 50
Wat er content (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
(c) (d)
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Water content (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
0. 00 0. 10 0.20 0.30 0. 40 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
30
(e)
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0. 30 0.40 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Wat er content (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
Figure 3.1. Water retention curve: (a) 17 vol% of VRF of class 1 with soil, (b) 14
vol% of VRF of class 2 with soil, (c) 14 vol% of VRF of class 3 with soil, (d) 17 vol%
of VRF class 4 with soil, (e ) pure soil (Sibelite
M002). Error bars are 1 standard

deviation.
In order to compare the
SAT
,
FC
and
PWP
among pure soil versus soil-VRF mixed samples of
each size class of VRF, ANOVA and Duncan multiple comparison test was carried out to
compare means, the results are shown in the Table 3.5.
According to the statistical test, there are differences in
SAT
among pure soil and mixed
samples. Probably, these differences are because the VRF have less porosity (Table 3.3) than
31
the fine earth. The porosity value (0.54) of fine earth was calculated based on bulk density of
1.23 g cm
-3
and assuming a particle density of 2.65 g cm
-3
(Raes, 2004). There is no statistical
difference in
FC
, this result agrees with the pedotransfer function developed by Saxton and
Rawls (2006), where the rock fragments do not appear to affect the
FC
. On the other hand
there are differences in
PWP
, in which for soil-VRF mixtures
PWP
in general are slightly
greater than pure soil. Perhaps, this difference is because of the VRF effect (more very small
pores). In this respect, Duteau (1987), after Cuniglio et al. (2008) indicates that porous rock
fragments can attract water during drought periods, because of their micropores.
Table 3.5. Comparison of water content at saturation (
SAT
), field capacity (
FC
) and
permanent wilting point (
PWP
) between different soil-VRF mixtures and pure soil
(Sibelite
M002). The letters show significant statistical groups (=0.05), m (mean) se

(standard deviation) and N (repetitions).
SAT
(m
3
m
-3
)
FC
(m
3
m
-3
)
PWP
(m
3
m
-3
)
Mixtures and pure soil
N m se N m se N m se
Pure soil 5 0.49 0.01 a 5 0.31 0.02 a 3 0.02 0.00 b
soil + 17 vol% VRF class 4 7 0.46 0.05 ba 7 0.33 0.05 a 3 0.03 0.01 ab
soil + 14 vol% VRF class 3 10 0.45 0.01 b 8 0.32 0.01 a 5 0.03 0.00 a
soil + 14 vol% VRF class 2 10 0.44 0.01 b 6 0.32 0.01 a 5 0.03 0.00 ab
soil + 17 vol% VRF class 1 10 0.44 0.01 b 7 0.32 0.01 a 5 0.03 0.00 a
And further, Brouwer and Anderson (2000) for the case of ironstones gravel found that
PWP
was still high in soil-rock fragment mixtures, due to high water content in the ironstone
gravel. Katsura et al. (2006) indicates that reduces more with increasing of pressure suction
head for pure soil than for rock.
(Sibelite
M002)
Figure 3.2 presents the WRC for experiment 2, where the soil-VRF mixtures of each class
show less between 0.0 and 2.8 pF pressure suction points in comparison with pure soil.
32
(a) (b)
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
0.00 0. 10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Water cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
(c) (d)
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0. 50
Wat er content (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
0. 00 0. 10 0. 20 0. 30 0. 40 0. 50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
(e)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Water cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
33
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
Figure 3.2. Water retention curve: (a) 29 vol% of VRF of class 1 with soil , (b) 27
vol% of VRF of class 2 with soil, (c) 30 vol% of VRF of class 3 with soil, (d) 25 vol%
of VRF of class 4 with soil, and (e) pure soil (Sibelite
M002). Error bars are 1

standard deviation.
This difference could be explained, on the one hand by the fact that the VRF have less pores
than pure soil, as a consequence less water content, Katsura et al. (2006) found that the rock
(granite) had a smaller value (0.3 m
3
m
-3
) of
SAT
than the pure soil (0.5 m
3
m
-3
), and the rock
fragment occupies the volume of soil, which is able to retain water (Baetens, 2007). On the
other hand, Fis et al. (2002) and van Wesemael et al. (2003) reported that the water holding
capacity is affected by the texture and the increment of rock fragment content because of
increment of macropores.
Table 3.6 shows the result of Duncan multiple comparison on
SAT
,
FC
and
PWP
, in which, it
can be seen that
SAT
is greater for pure soil than the soil-VRF mixtures, as happened in the
experiment 1.
SAT
of mixtures for experiment 2 as compared to experiment 1 shows lower
values, probably, this is because increment of the VRF as reported by Fis et al. (2002) and
van Wesemael et al. (2003). The fact that the loss in water holding capacity is proportionally
higher for 30 vol% mixtures might be due to existence of macropores at the contact surface
between two volcanic rock fragments (drainage).
34
SAT
), field capacity
(
FC
PWP
) between different soilVRF mixtures and pure
soil (Sibelite
M002). The letters show significant statistical groups ( = 0.05), m (mean),

se (standard deviation) and N (repetitions).
SAT
(m
3
m
-3
)
FC
(m
3
m
-3
)
PWP
(m
3
m
-3
)
Mixtures and pure soil
N m se N m se N m se
Pure soil 7 0.50 0.01 a 7 0.33 0.02 a 3 0.03 0.00 c
soil + 30 vol% VRF class 2 5 0.44 0.05 b 5 0.31 0.05 b 3 0.05 0.00 a
soil + 29 vol% VRF class 3 5 0.45 0.01 b 5 0.31 0.01 b 3 0.04 0.00 b
soil + 31 vol% VRF class 1 5 0.43 0.01 c 5 0.30 0.01 b 3 0.05 0.00 a
soil + 25 vol% VRF class 4 5 0.43 0.01 c 5 0.31 0.01 b 3 0.04 0.00 b
According to the statistical analysis,
FC
is slightly greater in pure soil as compared with all
classes of soil-VRF mixtures. When the mixed samples were composed by around 15 vol% of
VRF there were no statistical differences (Table 3.6). On this issue van Wesemael et al.
(1995); Petersen et al. (1968), cited by Baetens (2007) reported that at FC the fine earth water
content decreases with increment of rock fragment content. Recently zhan et al. (2008)
reported a reduction of
FC
because of the increment of volcanic rock from 25 to 50 mass% in
loamy soil mixtures.
In relation to
PWP
among pure soil and soil-VRF mixtures present differences, in which the
soil containing VRF of each size class contain more water at PWP than pure soil. This result
was also found by Coile (1953); Brouwer and Anderson (2000) and zhan et al. (2008) who
reported that soil-rock fragment mixtures can hold more water because of the water content in
the rocks. It is also observed that, while the VRF content increased from around 15 to 30
vol% the water content in the soil-VRF mixtures also increased. zhan et al. (2008) found
that the
PWP
increased as the rock fragment increased in soil-rock fragment mixtures, from 25
to 50 mass% of volcanic rock fragment (pumice), but only when the mixtures were for loamy
sand and sandy loam textural soil classes.
Summarising, soilVRF mixtures in general have less at low suction, because of VRF
presence, which allows the formation of macrospores when 2 or more VRF are in contact
each other, this is schematized in Figure 3.3.
35
Figure 3.3. Schematisation of macroporosity formation due to presence of VRF inside of
the kopecky ring, for soil-VRF mixtures containing around 15 and 30 vol%, grey colour
represents the fine earth and black colour represents the VRF.
The macropores seem to increase when the VRF content increases from 15 to 30 vol%, it can
be seen when reduced for soilVRF mixtures (30 vol% of VRF) at FC as shown in the
Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4. In addition the roughness of VRF surface could have facilitated the
increment of macropores. The presence of macropores probably is directly related with
preferential flow, hence increment of drainage.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Wat er content (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
Figure 3.4. Water retention curve for soil-VRF mixtures composed by around 15 vol%
() and around 30 vol% of VRF () versus pure soil (), (soil: Sibelite
M002).
The fact that at high suctions the soil-VRF mixtures have proportionally more water could be
explained by the greater content of micropores by the VRF in relation to the pure soil.
15% VRF 30% VRF
Macro-pores
36
3.1.2.2.4 Experiment 3, WRC for around 15 vol% of each class of VRF mixed with silty loam
and sandy soils
The result of the statistical analysis for experiment 3 is summarized in Table 3.7. The results
of the WRC are presented in the following order: first for SL
1
-VRF mixtures, in which SL
1
is
silty loam soil texture composed of 22.2 % sand, 69.0 % silt and 8.8 % clay, secondly for
SL
2
-VRF mixtures in which SL
2
is silty loam soil texture composed of 25.2 % sand 60.0 %
silt and 14.5 % clay, and afterwards for S-VRF mixtures in which S is a sandy soil.
SAT
), field capacity
(
FC
PWP
) between soil-VRF mixtures and pure soils.
Different letter means statistical differences (=0.05), N (repetitions). (Mean 1
standard deviation).
Soil textural classes and
soil-VRF mixtures
VRF
(vol%)
N
SAT
(m m
-
)
N
FC
(m m
-
)
N
PWP
(m m
-
)
Pure SL
1
0 4 0.56 0.01 a 4 0.31 0.00 a 4 0.11 0.01 a
SL
1
-VRF mixture (class 1) 16 4 0.50 0.01 b 4 0.29 0.01 b 3 0.12 0.01 a
SL
1
SL
1
SL
1
Pure SL
2
0 4 0.48 0.01 a 4 0.44 0.01 a 5 0.16 0.00 b
SL
2
- VRF mixture (class 1) 16 4 0.43 0.01 b 4 0.40 0.01 b 3 0.17 0.00 b
SL
2
-VRF mixture (class 2) 16 4 0.43 0.01 b 4 0.40 0.01 b 3 0.16 0.00 b
SL
2
-VRF mixture (class 3) 17 4 0.43 0.01 b 4 0.40 0.01 b 3 0.17 0.00 b
SL
2
Pure S 0 4 0.38 0.00 a 4 0.07 0.00 b 5 0.006 0.00 c
S-VRF mixture (class 1) 15 4 0.37 0.00 a b 4 0.09 0.01 a b 3 0.029 0.00 b
S-VRF mixture (class 2) 15 4 0.36 0.00 b 4 0.10 0.01 a 3 0.029 0.00 b
S-VRF mixture (class 3) 15 4 0.36 0.02 b 4 0.09 0.02 a b 3 0.030 0.00 b
S-VRF mixture (class 4) 16 4 0.38 0.02 a b 4 0.10 0.03 a 3 0.041 0.00 a
SL
1
: silty loam with 22.2 % sand, 69.0 % silt and 8.8 % clay, SL
2
: silty loam with 25.2 % sand, 60 % silt and
14.5 % clay and S: sandy soil with 99.5 % sand, 0.2 % silt and 0.3 % clay.
SL
1
- VRF mixtures
Figure 3.5 shows that the
SAT
and
FC
of pure SL
1
are greater as compared to SL
1
-VRF
mixtures for each size class of VRF. This result is also corroborated by the statistical analysis
37
(Table 3.7). On the other hand the values of
SAT
,
FC
and
PWP
found in this experiment for
pure SL
1
are in the range of values reported by Raes (2004).
a) b)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Wat er content (mm-)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0. 00 0. 10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0. 60
pF
c) d)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0. 00 0. 10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0. 60
Wat er content (mm- )
pF
e)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
pF
38
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
pF
1
, (b) 15
vol% of VRF of class 2 with SL
1
1
, (d) 16 vol%
of VRF class 4 with SL
1
and (e) pure SL
1
. Error bars represent one standard
deviation.
For the case of
PWP
, no significant differences were found between pure SL
1
and SL
1
-VRF
mixtures. This result agrees with the pedotransfer function proposed by Saxton and Rawls
(2006), in which the VRF did not affect the
PWP
. This is probably because the amount of
micropores is almost the same in both, given that the SL
1
soil is composed by 69.0 % silt and
8.8 % clay. The micropores volume is related with the pore volume of the clay matrix in the
soil (Boivin et al., 2004). The content of silt, but mainly clay can hold more water due to its
high specific surface (Jury and Horton, 2004). In addition the claysilt phase also forms
micropores as described by Fis and Bruand (1998) and Boivin et al. (2004). And for the case
of VRF was also found that they have high content of micropores in experiments 1 and 2.
There are no statistical differences of among SL
1
-VRF mixtures; this means that the size of
VRF chosen to develop this experiment has the same effect on
SAT
,
FC
as well as
PWP
(Table 3.7). Probably, this is because the size of VRF inside of the mixture slightly affected
the bulk density of fine earth, as shown in Table 3.8, and consequently it slightly changed the
39
pore space. The values of
b,rf
,
b,f
and
b,t
given in Table 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 were calculated
based on the Equations 2.1, 2.7 and 2.8 respectively (Section 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.3.2).
b,t
b,rf
) and bulk density of fine
earth (
b,f
) of pure SL
1
and SL
1
- VRF mixtures. (Mean 1 standard deviation, N=4).
Pure soil and mixtures
VRF
(vol%)
b,t
(g cm
-
)
b,f
(g cm
-
)
b,rf
(g cm
-
)
Pure SL
1
0 1.24 0.01 - -
SL
1
- VRF mixture (class 1) 16 1.36 0.01 1.29 0.02 1.62 0.00
SL
1
-VRF mixture (class 2) 15 1.36 0.02 1.28 0.02 1.80 0.00
SL
1
SL
1
SL
2
- VRF mixtures
a) b)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.10 0.20 0. 30 0. 40 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
c) d)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
40
e)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Wat er content (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
2
, (b) 16
vol% of VRF of class 2 with SL
2
2
, (d) 16 vol%
of VRF class 4 with SL
2
and (e) pure SL
2
. Error bars represent 1 standard deviation.
The Figure 3.6 shows that the SL
2
RVF of each VRF class always has less water content than
pure SL
2
. This occurs from SAT until suction pF 2.8, which is also corroborated by the
statistical test (Table 3.7). If one compares these curve with those found for SL
1
-VRF
mixtures and pure SL
1
, the differences between them are less significant at suction pF points
of 2.0 and 2.8. Perhaps it occurred because the SL
2
-VRF mixtures had to be prepared with
moistened soil (pure SL
2
with a high content of clay), using moistened soil appears to change
41
the
b,f
due to compaction of fine earth (Table 3.9). Indeed the
b,f
inside of mixtures changed
considerably for each SL
2
- VRF mixture, probably an effect of this is an increment of
macropores when two or more VRF were in contact each other, and these became bigger
while clay was undergone shrinkage as shown in Figure 3.7 (Fist et al., 2002; Boivin et al.,
2004).
b,t
b,rf
earth (
b,f
) of pure SL
2
and SL
2
- VRF mixtures. (Mean 1 standard deviation, N=4).
VRF
(vol%)
b,t
(g cm
-
)
b,f
(g cm
-
)
b,rf
(g cm
-
)
Pure SL
2
0 1.42 0.02 - -
SL
2
SL
2
SL
2
SL
2
It was also observed that either for pure SL
2
and SL
2
-VRF mixtures
FC
remained high as in
clay soil. The possible reason is that SL
2
were compacted, it can indeed be seen in the Table
3.9, in which the
b,f
reached high values. In addition the organic matter of these samples
appeared to be important, according to Saxton and Rawls (2006) organic matter generally
increases the water holding capacity of soil. The size of VRF did not affect the water holding
capacity of the SL
2
- VRF mixtures at SAT or in FC, but it did at PWP, in which the SL
2
- VRF
mixture composed by class 4 presented the highest values, probably it may be an effect of
high micropores content in this size class of stone.
Figure 3.7. Ternary mixtures (clay, silt and sand), (a) 10 % of clay and (b) 15 % of clay,
the black areas are the macropores and the grey areas represent ternary mixtures
(Source: Fis and Bruand, 1998).
42
As happened during experiments 1 and 2 (Figure 3.3), the SL-VRF mixtures lost more water
at low suction, in comparison with pure SL soil, apparently because the increment of drainage
and preferential flow trough of those macropores. The formation of macropores in the SL-
VRF mixtures as shown in Figure 3.7, in part seems to be helped by the shrinkage of clay,
since clay is a shrinkage agent (Boivin et al., 2004). This could have occurred especially for
the case of SL
2
-VRF mixtures, since it contained 15 % of clay. In this respect Fis et al.
(2002) stated that the macropores formation is due to filling or shrinkage, but shrinkage only
occurs when the clay content in the soil-rock fragment mixture is greater than 30 %. To study
this, he used as coarse material glass an inert material and without any porosity.
S-VRF mixtures
a) b)
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0. 40
pF
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0. 30 0.40
Wat er cont ent (mm-)
pF
c) d)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0. 10 0. 20 0. 30 0.40
Water cont ent (mm-)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Water cont ent (mm-)
pF
43
e)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
pF
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
Figure 3.8. Water retention curve: (a) 15 vol% of VRF of class 1 with S, (b) 15 vol%
of VRF of class 2 with S, (c) 15 vol% of VRF class 3 with S, (d) 16 vol% of VRF class
4 with S and (e) pure S (Sand). Error bars represent 1 standard deviation.
The WRC for S-VRF mixtures of each size class and pure S are given in Figure 3.8. The
SAT
,
FC
and
PWP
values for pure S reported in Table 3.7 are comparable to the values reported by
Ceballos et al. (2002); Saxton and Rawls (2006) and Heng et al. (2009). The
FC
was very
low, possibly due the fact that this soil is composed by 99.5 % of sand.
According to the Table 3.7 and Figure 3.8, there are statistical differences of the between
pure S and S-VRF mixtures.
SAT
changes only slightly between pure S and mixtures, but
FC
44
and
PWP
of S-VRF mixtures were greater than pure S soil. As mentioned before the probable
reason is because the VRF have high mesopores and micropores content as compared with
sand, specially the VRF of class 4. This result was also reported by zhan et al. (2008) for the
case of loamy sand soil mixed with 25 mass% of volcanic rock (pumice), in which the
mixture got 30 % more water content as compared with pure loamy sand at FC and PWP.
In contrast with the WRC of SL-VRF mixtures, the size of VRF affected the water holding
capacity of S-VRF mixtures, as shown in the statistical analysis (Table 3.7), in which the S-
VRF mixtures formed by VRF of class 1 and 4 have greater
SAT
as compared with mixtures
formed by VRF of class 2 and 3. Possibly, the VRF of class 1 and 4 have more macropores
(Table 3.3). With regards to the
FC
the difference between them is lower, probably it can be
explained by the fact that
b,t
did not changed a lot among them (Table 3.10).
With respect to
PWP
the difference among them are small, but the S-VRF mixtures composed
by VRF of class 4 shows the greatest values, in this respect Coile (1953) found that the size of
stone affected its
PWP
, in which soil igneous rock of 2-5 mm and 13-19 mm of size got 2.7
and 3.8 mass% of water respectively. The fact that VRF of class 4 contains more water is
possibly because they have more micropores than the other classes, given that
PWP
was
reported as an indirect indicator of textural microporosity in soils (Armas-Espinel et al.,
2003), whereas the
SAT
and
FC
as indicators of macroporosity as well as mesoporosity
respectively (Luxmoore, 1981, after Armas-Espinel et al., 2003).
b,t
b,rf
earth (
b,f
) of pure sand (S) and S-VRF mixtures. (Mean 1 standard deviation, N=4).
VRF
(vol%)
b,t
(g cm
-
)
b,f
(g cm
-
)
b,rf
(g cm
-
)
Pure S 0 1.67 0.01 - -
S-VRF mixture (class 1) 15 1.67 0.01 1.68 0.01 1.61 0.00
From Table 3.10, it is also observed that rocks did not produce strong compaction on fine
earth in the mixed samples, or in some cases the bulk density of fine earth remained the same
45
as pure sand, in contrast to SL-VRF mixture, in which the local compaction provoked by VRF
(rocks) was more significant (Table 3.8 and Table 3.9).
3.1.3 WRC separation of volcanic rock and WRC of soil from mixed samples
The Figure 3.9 shows the WRC for volcanic rock fragments of class 1 up to class 4 (Table
2.2). It is observed that from saturation pF 0 until pF 2 it is possible to separate the WRC of
volcanic rock fragments from the total mixed samples, taking into account the bulk density of
VRF and its volume and the bulk density of the soil. But the water content between pF 2.3
and pF 3.4 show a strange behaviour, instead of reducing it increases. Possibly, the
assumption that the fine earth of the mixture and the VRF form two separate structures was
wrong for 2.3, 2.8 and 3.4 pressure suction pF points. Instead, a new composite structure
should be taken into account (Figure 3.9). And for the water content at pF 4.2 shows
reasonable values for all the VRF size classes.
From the Figure 3.9, it seems to be impossible to separate the water content of the volcanic
rock and soil from the total mixed samples especially at 2.3, 2.8 and 3.4 pF pressure suction
points by this method. Brouwer and Anderson, (2000) almost followed a similar
methodology, but they utilised a diatomaceous earth of great uniformity and known WRC.
According to Raes (pers. comm., 2009) the soil-VRF mixtures appears to form a new very
specific soil structure and therefore it is impossible to separate them. Furthermore, Brakensiek
and Rawls (1994), as cited in Miller and White (1998) states that the rock fragments change
the structure and the pore space amount in the soil. It was observed that the VRF inside of the
mixture changed the bulk density of the fine earth and therefore the pore space as presented in
Table 3A of annexes. Zimmerman and Bodvarsson (1995), for soil-rock fragment mixtures
proposed next equation for obtaining the volumetric water content:
rf v s v t
R R u u u + = ) 1 ( Eq.4.1
Where
t
[mm
-3
] is the total water content of the soil-rock fragment mixture, R
v
[m
3
m
-3
] the
volumetric rock fragment content,
s
[m
3
m
-3
] and
rf
[m
3
m
-3
] are the volumetric water
46
content in the soil without rock fragments and the water content of rock fragment,
repetitively. Based on equation 4.1 the
rf
can be arranged as the next equation:
( )
v v t rf
R R / ) 1 ( = u u Eq.4.2
We tried to calculate
rf
for VRF based on the equation 4.2. And the problem was again with
2.3, 2.8 and 3.4 pF points pressure suctions, the WRC was as shown in the Figure 3.9.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Water content (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Wat er content (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Wat er cont ent (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0. 15 0.20 0.25
Wat er content (m
3
m
-3
)
pF
Figure 3.9. Water retention curve of volcanic rock fragments class 1(), class 2 (), class
3 (x) and class 4 () separated from total mixed samples for experiment 1. Error bars
represent 1 standard deviation.
47
At field capacity all the macro-pores are emptied by the gravitational forces, remaining with
water in the mesopores and micropores, which are held by the capillary and adsorption forces
to the soil matrix (Raes, 2004). Zimmerman and Bodvarsson (1995) states that the equation
4.1 should be applied only if soil rock fragment are in capillary equilibrium with each other,
when that is not so, the case of dual porosity should be considered. Ma and Shao (2008) states
that stony soils, in fact, have 2 porous media one is the fine earth (continuous pore system)
and the rock fragment (discontinuous pore system) when the rock is enwrapped by fine earth,
the rock could hold water if it is not impermeable, but its hydraulic conductivity may be lower
than fine earth and act as sink or source of water in the soil-rock fragment mixture.
3.2 AquaCrop modelling
3.2.1 Sensitivity analysis of the model to different soil physical properties
3.2.1.1.1 Simulation for local sandy soil (from southern Bolivian Altiplano)
The grain yield simulated by the AquaCrop model, WUE
Ta
as well as WUE
ETa
calculated are
presented in Table 3.11, in which the average grain yield 0.95 Mg ha
-1
is quite realistic, given
that in the Bolivian Altiplano with low rainfall, marginal lands and without fertilization, the
average yield does not exceed 1 Mg ha
-1
(Mujica et al., 2001).
Ta
)
and for actual evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
), under rainfed conditions of southern
Bolivian Altiplano (mean 1 standard deviation).
Years
Grain yield
(Mg ha
-1
)
WUE
Ta
(kg m
-3
)
WUE
ETa
(kg m
-3
)
18 0.95 0.81 0.53 0.17 0.29 0.13
The WUE
ETa
ranges from 0.11 kg m
-3
to 0.52 kg m
-3
as shown in the Figure 3.10a, the lowest
values were found during the dry years, whereas the greatest values were found during wet
years. Geerts et al. (2008b) also reported a value of 0.50 kg m
-3
for rainfed condition at the
same study area, during a wet year (385 mm) and with capillary rise (CR) contribution of 45
48
mm. The maximum value was 0.52 kg m
-3
for 364 mm of rainfall, while it was only 0.45 kg
m
-3
for 660 mm of rainfall. This corroborates the previously mentioned that the nutrient
reservoir depletes while the crop develops, and therefore the relation between yield and T
a
become non-linear, despite of high rainfall (Heng et al., 2007; Geerts, 2008; Raes et al.,
2009a).
From the Figure 3.10a it can also be seen that the WUE
ETa
for the quinoa crop has a logistic
curve as reported by Geerts (2008) and Geerts and Raes (2009). While the WUE
Ta
seems to
have a linear behaviour (Figure 3.10b), WUE
Ta
is also called transpiration efficiency as can be
found in Zhang et al. (1998). WUE
Ta
ranges from 0.34 kg m
-3
to 0.78 kg m
-3
according to
seasonal rainfall during the crop development.
It was also observed that during wet years, for instance when the rainfall was 563 mm and
411 mm the WUE
Ta
were 0.65 kg m
-3
and 0.78 kg m
-3
respectively, which means more WUE
Ta
with less rainfall. In this respect Zhang et al. (1998), found that rainfed plus irrigated wheat
had lower WUE
Ta
in comparison with rainfed wheat, concluding that the excess of water
decreased WUE
Ta
because of higher transpiration caused by greater leaf area and higher
stomatal conductance.
Y = -4E-08x
3
+ 5E-05x
2
- 0. 008x + 0. 64
R
2
= 0. 94
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 200 400 600
ETa(mm)
G
r
a
i
n
y
i
e
l
d
(
M
g
h
a
-
1
)
y = 0. 007x - 0.22
R
2
= 0. 97
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 100 200 300 400
Ta(mm)
G
r
a
i
n
y
i
e
l
d
(
M
g
h
a
-
1
)
Figure 3.10. (a) Simulated grain yield versus actual evapotranspiration (ETa),
simulated data () and trend curve (); (b) Simulated grain yield versus actual
transpiration (Ta), simulated data () and trend line ().
(a) (b)
49
M002)
Table 3.12 show that the K
SAT
value calculated by means of pedotransfer functions for the
pure soil (Sibelite
M002) was 670 mm day

-1
, that is almost similar to the value found by
(Tuts, unpublished data, 2009) 640 mm day
-1
, that was determined by means of laboratory
permeameter.
The K
SAT
for soil-VRF mixtures decreases with increment of rock content %vol (R
v
) in
agricultural soil because decreases the amount of soil matrix in which water could be stored or
conducted (Miller and White, 1998; Saxton and Rawls, 2006; Verbist et al., 2009). On the
other hand Ma and Shao (2008) state that rock fragment content in the soil is an important
factor to obstruct infiltration because of reducing the cross-sectional area for water flow.
Table 3.12 also presents the water content at SAT, FC and PWP for experiments 1 and 2 used
to carry out the simulations.
Table 3.12. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K
SAT
) calculated based on soil texture
(Sibelite
M002) and volume of VRF (vol%) by means of pedotransfer functions, and

soil physical properties from experiment 1 (E-1) and experiment 2 (E-2).
The result of simulations and statistical analysis for grain yield, WUE
Ta
and WUE
ETa
with soil
data obtained from experiment 1 as well as experiment 2 are presented in Table 3.13.
According to the statistical analysis (pairwise comparison), there are no significant
Soil inputs
VRF
(vol%)
K
SAT
(mm day
- 1
)
SAT
(vol%)
FC
(vol%)
PWP
(vol%)
Pure soil 0 670 49.0 31.0 2.0
Soil- VRF mixture (class 1) 17 530
44.0 32.0 3.0
Soil -VRF mixture (class 2) 14 530
44.0 32.0
3.0
Soil- VRF mixture (class 3) 14 530
45.0 32.0
3.0
E-1
Soil -VRF mixture (class 4) 17 530 46.0 33.0
3.0
Pure soil 0 670 51.0 33.0 3.0
Soil- VRF mixture (class 1) 31 420 43.0 30.0 5.0
Soil -VRF mixture (class 2) 30 420 44.0 32.0 5.0
Soil- VRF mixture (class 3) 29 420 45.0 31.0 4.0
E-2
Soil -VRF mixture (class 4) 25 420 43.0 31.0 4.0
50
differences of grain yield for pure soil and soil-VRF mixtures composed by around 15 vol%
of each size class of VRF, but there are significant differences for WUE
Ta
and WUE
ETa
. For
the soil inputs from experiment 2, there are significant differences of grain yield, WUE
Ta
and
WUE
ETa
for pure soil as compared with the soil-VRF mixtures (Table 3.13).
Ta
)
and actual evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
) for soil data (Sibelite
M002) from experiment

1 (E-1) and 2 (E-2), different letter indicates statistical differences ( = 0.05). (Mean 1
standard deviation).
Soil inputs
VRF
(vol%)
Years
Grain yield
(Mg ha
-1
)
WUE
Ta
(kg m
- 3
)
WUE
ETa
(kg m
-3
)
Pure soil 0 18 1.38 0.95 a 0.52 0.17 a 0.361 0.13 b
Soil-VRF mixture (class 1) 17 18 1.33 0.88 a 0.52 0.17 a 0.359 0.13 c
Soil-VRF mixture (class 2) 14 18 1.33 0.88 a 0.52 0.17 a 0.359 0.13 d
Soil-VRF mixture (class 3) 14 18 1.33 0.88 a 0.52 0.17 a 0.359 0.13 e
E-1
Soil-VRF mixture (class 4) 17 18 1.37 0.88 a 0.51 0.17 b 0.364 0.13 a
Pure soil 0 18 1.39 0.87 d 0.52 0.18 a 0.37 0.12 a
Soil-VRF mixture (class 1) 31 18 1.22 0.89 b 0.51 0.18 a 0.34 0.13 c
Soil-VRF mixture (class 2) 30 18 1.30 0.86 e 0.51 0.18 a 0.35 0.13 b
Soil-VRF mixture (class 3) 29 18 1.29 0.90 a 0.51 0.18 b 0.35 0.13 b
E-2
Soil-VRF mixture (class 4) 25 18 1.28 0.88 c 0.52 0.18 c 0.35 0.13 b
From the grain yield, WUE
Ta
and WUE
ETa
simulated based on the data for each soil-VRF
mixtures for experiment 1 and 2; the average was calculated in order to compare it with the
values found for pure soil. The results are presented in the Figure 3.11. Where, there are not
great differences in WUE
Ta
or in WUE
ETa
between pure soil and soil-VRF mixtures, even
when the VRF increases from 15 to 30 vol%.
There is an inverse relation between the VRF content and simulated grain yield, for the type
of rock fragment found in Bolivia. In other words the increment of VRF in the soil reduces
the simulated grain yield, given that the soil contain around 15 vol% of VRF reduces in 3.2 %
the simulated grain yield in comparison to pure soil. When the soil has around 30 vol% of
VRF the simulated grain yield reduces 8.3 % in comparison with pure soil (Figure 3.11). Not
taking into account the changes in WRC the simulation leads to an overestimation of quinoa
yields.
51
The grain yield reduction of soil-VRF mixtures in comparison with pure soil perhaps could be
explained by the fact that VRF affect the water balance. Mainly TAW, that was greater for
pure soil than soil-VRF mixtures (Table 3.12). More run off (RO) was generated by soil-VRF
mixture especially when the VRF increased from around 15 to 30 vol%, hence less infiltrated
water in the soil profile and root zone were produced. The increment of deep percolation
(drainage out of the soil profile) could occur in wet years, because
SAT
was lower than for
pure soil.
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.3
Pure soil Soil-
VRFmixt ure
(15 vol %)
Soil-
VRFmixt ure
(30 vol %)
G
r
a
i
n
Y
i
e
l
d
(
M
g
h
a
-
1
)
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Pure soil Soil-
VRFmixt ure
(15 vol %)
Soil-
VRFmixt ure
(30 vol %)
W
U
E
(
k
g
m
-
3
)
Figure 3.11. Comparison of (a) simulated grain yield, (b) water use efficiency for
transpiration (WUE
Ta
) () and for evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
), () for pure soil
versus soil-VRF mixtures. Error bars represent 1 standard deviation.
It was also observed that the simulated soil evaporation (E) increases slightly when the VRF
increases. In literature it was found that the rock fragment can reduce (Cousin, 2003) or
increase (Prez, 2000) the soil evaporation, or it can have an ambivalent effect on the
evaporation rates, reducing it in wet conditions and increasing it in dry conditions (van
Wesemael et al., 1995). In addition they could have either positive as negative effect on the
plant development, for instance Kosmas et al. (1998) states that E is hampered and retarded
under rock fragments during the day, so that plants could adsorb it. But Adams (1967), cited
by Poesen and Lavee (1994) found that rock fragments applied as mulch for sorghum
produced a high temperatures close to the plant that could provoke problems in certain
physiological functions.
(a)
(b)
52
The E was found to be slightly greater in soil containing VRF, as was mentioned before the
VRF could reduce or increase the E according to the climatic conditions along to the crop
cycle. AquaCrop posses inside its management field file the mulch application in order to
reduce the E, but for the case of VRF this seems not applicable because the mulch will
permanently reduce the E, which is not coinciding with the literature as mentioned above.
R
2
= 0.94
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
ETa(mm)
G
r
a
i
n
y
i
e
l
d
(
M
g
h
a
-
1
)
Figure 3.12. Simulated grain yield in function of actual evapotranspiration (ETa) for:
pure soil (X), soil-VRF mixture with 15 vol% (), with 30 vol% of VRF, () and trend
curve, that is a third order polynomial as an approximation for logistic function ().
The WUE
ETa
function for pure soil, soil-VRF mixture with around 15 vol% and 30 vol% of
VRFis presented in Figure 3.12, in which the WUE
ETa
function for quinoa has a logistic curve
as indicated by Geerts et al (2009b).
3.2.1.1.3 Simulations for WRC of sand-VRF mixtures and pure sand
Table 3.14 presents the soil inputs that were used in the simulation for sandy soil with and
without VRF. The K
SAT
for pure sand was calculated by means of pedotransfer function of
Saxton and Rawls (2006), this value almost agrees with the value of 6420 mm day
-1
reported
by Ceballos et al. (2006) for sandy soils.
53
Table 3.14. Soil inputs used to carry out the simulation for quinoa production with and
without VRF in the sandy soil (S).
(1)
TAW: (
FC
u -
PWP
u )* 1000*Z, in which Z=1m.
The result of the simulations as well as the statistical analysis for grain yield, WUE
Ta
and
WUE
ETa
are given in Table 3.15. The simulated grain yield ranges between 0.71 Mg ha
-1
and
0.84 Mg ha
-1
, this result agrees with the normal grain yield for rainfed condition of Bolivian
Altiplano that was reported to be less than 1.0 Mg ha
-1
(Risi, 2001).
Table 3.15. Comparison of simulated grain yield, water use efficiency for actual
transpiration (WUE
Ta
) and for actual evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
) for sand-VRF
mixtures versus pure sandy soil (S), different letters mean statistical differences
(=0.05). (Mean 1 standard deviation).
Soil inputs
VRF
(vol%)
Years
Grain yield
(Mg ha
-1
)
WUE
Ta
(kg m
-3
)
WUE
ETa
(kg m
- 3
)
Pure S 0 18 0.81 0.90 b 0.37 0.24 a 0.23 0.18 a
S-VRF mixture (class 1) 15 18 0.76 0.88 c 0.36 0.25 b 0.21 0.18 b
S-VRF mixture (class 2) 15 18 0.84 0.92 a 0.38 0.25 a 0.23 0.18 a
S-VRF mixture (class 3) 15 18 0.74 0.87 d 0.35 0.24 c 0.21 0.18 c
S-VRF mixture (class 4) 16 18 0.71 0.87 e 0.34 0.24 d 0.20 0.18 d
According to pairwise test comparison, the simulated grain yields for each sand-VRF
mixtures are different to the ones found for pure sand. With respect to WUE
ETa
andWUE
Ta
for
pure sand as compared with S-VRF mixtures, there are differences with S-VRF mixtures
composed by VRF of class 1, 3 and 4. The WUE
ETa
found are lower than the value reported by
Geerts et al. (2008b), which was 0.32 kg m
-3
under rainfed conditions of Bolivian Altiplano
(107 mm) and for sandy soils. Most probably, this is because the laboratory soil was even
more sandy, having a lower TAW. The differences of yield among pure sand and sand-VRF
Soil inputs
VRF
(vol%)
K
SAT
(mm day
-1
)
SAT
(vol%)
FC
(vol%)
PWP
(vol%)
TAW
(1)
(mm)
Pure S 0 5979 38.0 7.0 0.06 64
S-VRF mixture (class 1) 15 4704 37.0 9.0 0.29 61
54
mixtures could be explained by the differences of TAW as shown in Table 3.14, in which
sandy soil containing 15 vol% of VRF generally presents lower TAW, because the VRF hold
more water at PWP, water that could be used by the plants, despite of having more water at
FC. It was also observed as an average of 18 years that the deep percolation and E were more
in sand-VRF mixtures than pure sand, but pure sand generated more RO.
In order to quantify the reduction of simulated grain yield, WUE
ETa
and WUE
Ta
for sandy soil
containing 15 vol% of VRF in relation with pure S, the average from the all VRF classes was
calculated (18 years), the result is given in Figure 3.13, in which the reduction are 5.4 %, 7.0
% and 4.5 % for simulated grain yield, WUE
ETa
and WUE
Ta
respectively, taken as baseline
the results of pure sand.
0. 0
0. 2
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
1. 0
Sand Sand -VRF(15 vol %)
G
r
a
i
n
y
i
e
l
d
(
M
g
h
a
-
1
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Sand Sand -VRF(15 vol %)
W
U
E
(
K
g
m
-
)
Figure 3.13. Comparison of (a) simulated grain yield, (b) water use efficiency for actual
transpiration (WUE
Ta
) () and for actual evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
) (), for pure
sand versus sand-VRF mixtures (15 vol% of VRF). Error bars represent 1 standard
deviation.
These results could be extrapolated to sandy soil from Bolivian Altiplano, based on the Table
3.2 the gravel content (VRF) was around 17 mass% between 0 and 40 cm of depth. However,
it was more abundant with 30 mass% at deeper layer. But, it still can be extrapolated, because
the root density is inversely related, which means that the root density is greater nearby to
surface. As a conclusion when the VRF is not considered, the model could overestimate the
grain yield by around 6 percent.
(a) (b)
55
3.2.1.1.4 Sensitivity analysis of the model to water content at field capacity and permanent
wilting for Sibelite
M002 soil
The soil inputs used to carry out this sensitive analysis are shown in the Table 3.16.
Table 3.16. Soil input model to asses the sensitivity analyses to water content at field
capacity (
FC
PWP
).* indicates the values changed in
comparison with baseline.
Soil input
SAT
(vol%)
FC
(vol%)
PWP
(vol%)
K
SAT
(mm day
-1
)
Maximum FC 50.0 37.0* 3.0 670
Maximum PWP 50.0 33.0 5.0* 670
Base-line 50.0 33.0 3.0 670
Minimum FC 50.0 28.0* 3.0 670
Minimum PWP 50.0 33.0 2.0* 670
Figure 3.14 presents the sensitivity analysis of the model to changes in
FC
, according to the
soil inputs presented in Table 3.16. The change of
FC
from 33.0 vol% to 37.0 vol% caused an
increment of 9 % for the simulated grain yield and 6 % for WUE
ETa
. While the change from
33.0 vol% to 28.0 vol% produced a reduction of 8 % and 5 % for the simulated grain yield
and WUE
ETa
respectively.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Max FC Baseline Min FC
G
r
a
i
n
y
i
e
l
d
(
M
g
h
a
-
1
)
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Max FC Baseline Min FC
W
U
E
E
T
a
(
K
g
h
a
-
1
)
Figure 3.14. Sensitivity analysis, (a) effect of changing water content at field capacity on
the simulated grain yield and (b) on water use efficiency for actual evapotranspiration
(WUE
ETa
). Error bars represent 1 standard deviation.
(a) (b)
56
Figure 3.15 shows the effect of changing water content at PWP on the grain yield and
WUE
ETa
, it can be observed that the grain yield and WUE
ETa
presented a reduction of 4 % and
3 % respectively, when the water content at PWP was changed from 3.0 vol% to 5.0 vol%.
On the other hand, when changes from 3.0 vol% to 2.0 vol% were done, both the grain yield
and WUE
ETa
increased to 2 %.
0.20
0.50
0.80
1.10
1.40
1.70
2.00
2.30
Max PWP Baseline Min PWP
G
r
a
i
n
y
i
e
l
d
(
M
g
h
a
-
1
)
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
0.44
0.48
Max PWP Baseline Min PWP
W
U
E
E
T
a
(
K
g
h
a
-
1
)
Figure 3.15. Sensitivity analysis, (a) effect of changing in water content at permanent
wilting point on the simulated grain yield and (b) on the water use efficiency for actual
evapotranspiration (WUE
ETa
). Error bars represent 1 standard deviation.
The water content at FC and PWP are very sensitive parameters, which agrees with the results
found by Geerts (2008); Geerts et al. (2009b) who stated that the water content at FC and
PWP are among most sensitive parameters of AquaCrop model. The values of
FC
(28.0
vol%) and
PWP
(5.0 vol%) correspond to soil-VRF mixtures composed by around 30 vol% of
VRF. According to the sensitivity analysis the simulation based on these values presented a
reduction on the grain yield and WUE
ETa
in comparison with pure soil. Therefore when the
VRF content in the soil is around 30 vol%, it should be considered if not the grain yield could
be overestimated in approximately 10 %, if the soil is silty loam.
data of pedotransfer functions
According to Table 3.17, the values of
SAT
,
FC
,
PWP
that were derived by means of
pedotransfer function (Saxton and Rawls, 2006) do not change with the increment of VRF
(a)
(b)
57
content to 15 vol%. This is because they consider gravel (VRF) as inert material, which does
not hold water by matric potential (Saxton and Rawls, 2006). The pedotransfer functions only
change the saturated hydraulic conductivity in response to VRF.
The laboratory data shows that
SAT
and
FC
of SL
1
-VRF mixtures are lower in comparison
with pure SL
1
.This is most probably because of the formation of macropores when VRF are in
contact each other, as reported by Fis et al. (2002), on the other hand the total bulk density
b,t
(fine earth plus VRF) was found to increase while the VRF increases. With respect to the
PWP
is slightly greater as compared with pure SL
1
, probably because the VRF have high
micropores content (Armas-Espinel et al., 2003), hence it can hold more water at PWP (Coile,
1953; Brouwer and Anderson, 2000; zhan 2008).
The soil inputs used to carry out the simulation for silt loam with 15 vol% of VRF content are
presented in Table 3.17, the K
SAT
was assumed to be 780 mm day
-1
for the laboratory inputs.
Table 3.17. Soil physical characteristics from laboratory and pedotransfer functions for
pure silty loam (SL
1
) and silty loam containing 15 vol% of volcanic rock fragments
(VRF).
Table 3.18 presents the simulated grain yield, in which there are statistical differences
according to the pairwise t test comparison. The average values of simulate grain yield for
data from pedotransfer functions are greater than the values from laboratory. This is mainly
because the differences in TAW, in which the pedotransfer function, predict more TAW than
laboratory data. Then, there can be variation of the harvest index (HI) produced by water
stress during dry years (Steduto et al., 2009; Geerts et al., 2009b).
Pedotransfer function Laboratory data
Physical
properties
VRF=0 vol% VRF=15 vol% VRF=0 vol% VRF=15 vol%
SAT
(vol%) 52.4 52.4 55.8 49.6
FC
(vol%) 29.4 29.4 31.0 29.2
PWP
(vol%) 8.3 8.3 11.1 11.6
b,t
(g cm
-3
) 1.26 1.26 1.24 1.34
K
SAT
(mm day
-1
) 984 780
58
Table 3.18. Comparison of simulated grain yield, for soil inputs from pedotransfer
functions versus laboratory, (mean 1 standard deviation). Different letters means
statistical differences (=0.05; N=18).
Soil data
VRF
(vol%)
Average grain yield
(Mg ha
-1
)
Difference- (%)
Pedotransfer 15 1.11 0.87 a
Laboratory 15 1.00 0.80 b
10.5
When the soil inputs are derived from pedotransfer functions, the simulated grain yield could
be overestimated by 10.5 %, taking as a base the inputs of laboratory.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
59
Chapter IV
4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the objectives and results obtained in the chapter developed before, the conclusions
and recommendations are the followings:
4.1 Conclusions
The gravel content or volcanic rock fragment of the soil of Irpani ranged from 13.2 % to 29.1
mass% according to the depth, in which deeper soil layers have more gravel content. The
textural class was sandy loam with very low natural soil fertility.
The bulk density of volcanic rock fragment ranged from 0.88 g cm
-3
to 2.03 g cm
-3
and the
porosity from 0.31 to 0.44. Volcanic rock fragments of size class 1 (2-3.15 mm) and size class
4 (>8mm) presented the highest values.
Sibelite
M002 soilvolcanic rock fragment mixtures in general had less water at low suction,
because of the presence of the volcanic rocks, which allowed the formation of macrospores
when 2 or more volcanic rocks were in contact each other, that increased drainage. Probably
these macropores increased proportionally with volcanic rocks from 15 to 30 % vol. In
contrast at high suctions the soil-volcanic rock mixtures had proportionally more water, this
may be attributed to a greater content of micropores by the rocks in relation to the pure soil.
For silty loam soils the content of volcanic rock fragments (VRF) by 15 vol% affected the
water retention curve at low suction. For this soil the volumetric water content at saturation
and field capacity was affected by the formation of macropores, provoking lower water
content in silty loam-VRF mixtures as compared with pure silty loam soil.
For sandy soils the water retention curve was affected at field capacity and permanent wilting
point, in which sandy soil containing 15 vol% volcanic rock fragments held more water, due
to high content of mesopores and micropores by the rocks from southern Bolivian Altiplano.
60
For silty loam soils, the content of volcanic rock fragments can strongly increase the bulk
density of the mixed samples. And even locally increase the bulk density of the fine earth
close to the rock fragment due to local compaction. In contrast, for sandy soil the content of
rock fragments could only slightly change the bulk density of the mixture.
The size of volcanic rock fragment chosen to carry out the experiments did not affect the
water retention curve of mixed samples (silt loamy-VRF mixtures) at saturation or at field
capacity, but it did slightly at permanent wilting point. In general way, the size of volcanic rock
fragment chosen in these experiments did not strongly affect the water retention curve, but the
amount of volcanic rock fragment did.
For sand, the size of VRF affected the water holding capacity of sand-VRF mixtures
particularly at permanent wilting point, in which the VRF of class 4 (>8 mm) showed to hold
more water due to greater amount of micropores.
The crop water productivity model AquaCrop was then used to test its sensitivity to volcanic
rock fragment presence in the soil input file. The grain yield simulated through the AquaCrop
model (0.95 Mg ha
-1
) was quite realistic for the Bolivian Altiplano condition (low rainfall,
marginal lands with very low soil fertility), since the average yield does not exceed 1 Mg ha
-1
.
Depending on the bulk density and volcanic rock fragment content vol% the soil water
balance and grain yield did not change much, for silty loam soil (Sibelite
M002) containing
around 15 vol% of volcanic rock fragment and under conditions of Bolivian Altiplano. But as
the content of volcanic rock fragment increased to around 30 vol%, the reduction of simulated
grain yield became significant (8.3 %). Therefore when the volcanic rock fragment content in
the soil is around 30 vol% overestimation on the simulated grain yield could occur.
The evaporation was found to be slightly greater in soil containing volcanic rock fragment
that could reduce or increase according to the climate conditions along to the crop cycle and
depending of the author that is cited. Therefore, to include a generic effect of stones on the
evaporation reduction in AquaCrop modelling is not possible.
61
The sensitivity analysis of AquaCrop to changes of volumetric water content at field capacity
and permanent wilting point on simulated grain yield, for silty loam soil (Sibelite
M002)
showed that maximum error in modelling by not taking into account the volcanic rock
fragment ranged from 9% to 3% on the yield estimation.
In the simulations carried out using sand-VRF mixtures. The effect of sandy soil containing
15 vol% of VRF on the simulated grain yield was a reduction by 5.4 % as compared with pure
sand. This was because mixtures had lower total available water, because VRF held more
water at permanent wilting point, that could had been used by the plants, despite of having
more water at field capacity.
The sandy soils from southern Bolivian Altiplano have as gravel content (VRF) around 17
mass% between 0 and 40 cm of depth, and 30 mass% between 40 and 60 cm. It can be
concluded based on the simulation for sandy soil-VRF mixtures that the grain yield could be
overestimated by around 6 %, if the stones on the water retention curve are not taken into
account in AquaCrop.
4.2 Recommendations
In pedotransfer functions, the bulk density of the rock fragments should be included into the
relation to change water content at saturation, field capacity and permanent wilting point more
correctly.
The volcanic rock fragment and the total bulk density (fine earth and rock fragments) appear
to affect the water content in soil-volcanic rock fragments mixtures. Therefore, multiple
regressions should be carried out, in order to investigate which of the soil physical
characteristics affect most highly the water retention curve in soil that contains porous rocks.
And in order to derive specific pedotransfer functions.
REFERENCES
62
5 References
Alcn, C., 2008. Determination of levels of water stress affecting crop development of quinoa
for the crop water productivity model AquaCrop. MSc Dissertation. IUPWARE, K.U.
LeuvenVrije University Brussels, Belgium. 113 p.
"Archimedes principle" Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009. Encyclopdia Britannica Online:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32827/Archimedes-principle. Acceded Abril
2009.
Aquagri, 2007. 08.01 sandbox, operating instructions. www.aquagri.com/pdf/M1-
0801_Sandbox.pdf. Acceded February 2009.
Armas-Espinel, S., Hernndez-Moreno, J. M., Muos-Carpena, R., Regalado, C. M., 2003.
Physical properties of sorriba-cultivated volcanic soil from Tenerife in relation to andic
diagnostic parameters. Geoderma 117, 301-307.
Aroni, G., 2001. Produccin de quinua en Bolivia. In: Izquierdo, J., Mujica, A., Jacobsen, S.-
E., Marathee, J. P., Morn, C. (Eds.), Primer taller interinstitucional sobre quinua cultivos
andinos. Caractersticas de la quinua y manejo del cultivo. Cultivos andinos. CD versin
1.0. FAO, Santiago, Chile.
Association Franaise de Normalisation, 1994. Qualit des SolsRecueil de normes
Franaises. AFNOR, Paris.
Baetens, J., 2007. Hydrophysical characterization of stony soils in arid zones of Chile. Msc.
Dissertation. Faculty of Bio-engineering land and forest management. Ghent University,
Belgium. 171p.
Bois, J.F., Winkel, T., Lhomme, J.P., Raffaillac, J.P., Rocheteau, A., 2006. Response of some
Andean cultivars of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to temperature: Effects on
germination, phenology, growth and freezing. Europ. J. Agron. 25, 299-308.
Boivin, P., Garnier, P., Tessier, D., 2004. Relationship between clay content, clay type, and
shrinkage properties of soil samples. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 11451153.
Bonifacio, A., 2001. Aspectos agrcolas y de mejoramiento de la quinua en Bolivia in quinua.
In: Izquierdo, J., Mujica, A., Jacobsen, S.-E., Marathee, J. P., Morn, C. (Eds.). Memorias
de reunin tcnica y taller de formulacin de proyecto regional sobre produccin y
nutricin humana en base a cultivos andinos. Cultivos andinos. CD versin 1.0. FAO,
Santiago, Chile.
Bosque, H., Lemeur, R., Van Damme, P., Jacobsen, S.-E., 2003. Ecophysiological analysis of
drought and salinity of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Reviews International
19, 111-119.
REFERENCES
63
Brouwer, J., Anderson, H., 2000. Water holding capacity of ironstone gravel in a typic
plinthoxeralf in Southeast Australia. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 1603-1608.
Ceballos A., Martnez-Fernndez, J., Santos, F., Alonso, P., 2002. Soil-water behaviour of
sandy soils under semi-arid conditions in the Duero Basin (Spain). J. Arid Environ.51, 501-
519.
Childs, S., Flint, A. L., 1990. Physical properties of forest soils containing rock fragments. In:
Gessel, S.P., Weetman, G.F., Powers, R.F. (Eds.), Sustained productivity of forest soils.
University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Coile, T. S., 1953. Moisture content of small stone in soil. Soil Sci. 75, 203-208.
Cousin, I., Nicoullaud, B., Coutadeur, C., 2003. Influence of rock fragments on the water
retention and water percolation in a calcareous soil. Catena 53, 97-114.
Cuniglio, R., Corti, G., Agnelli, A., 2008. Rock fragments evolution and nutrients release in
vineyard soils developed on a thinly layered limestone (Tuscany, Italy). Geoderma 148,
375-383.
Debergh, A.-S., 2007. Potential for deficit irrigation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in
the Bolivian Altiplano. Msc. Dissertation, Faculty of Applied Biol. And Agric. Sciences,
K.U. Leuven, Belgium. 119p.
Delaet, K., 2006. The historical effect of the El Nio Southern Oscillation on the growth and
production of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in the Bolivian Altiplano. Msc.
Dissertation, Faculty of Applied Biol. And Agric. Sciences, K.U. Leuven, Belgium 115p.
Descheemaeker, K., 2006. Pedological and hydrological effects of vegetation restoration in
exclosures established on degraded hillslopes in the highlands of Northern Ethiopia. PhD
dissertation. Dissertations of Agriculture n 725. Falculty of Agriculture and Applied Biol.
Sciences. K. U. Leuven, Belgium. 364 p.
du Bray, E. A., Ludignton, E., Brooks, E. W., Gamble, B. M., Ratt, J. C., Richter, D. H.,
Soria-Escalante, E., 1995. Compositional characteristics of middle to upper tertiary
volcanic rocks of the Bolivian Altiplano. U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin; 2119, 30 p.
Fis, J. C., Bruand, A., 1998. Particle packing and organization of the textural porosity in
clay-silt-sand mixtures. Eur. J. S. Science 49, 557-567.
Fis, J. C., De Louvigny, N., Chanzy, A., 2002. The role of stones in soil water retention. Eur.
J. S. Sci. 53, 95-104.
Franois, C., Bosseno, R., Vacher, J.J., Seguin, B., 1999. Frost-risk mapping derived from
satellite and surface data over the Bolivian Altiplano. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 95, 113-137.
REFERENCES
64
Garcia, M., 2003. Agroclimatic study and drought resistance analysis of quinoa for an
irrigation requirements in the Bolivian Altiplano. PhD dissertation. Dissertations of
Agriculture n 556. Falculty of Agriculture and Applied Biol. Sciences. K. U. Leuven,
Belgium. 184 p.
Garcia, M., Raes, D., Jacobsen, S.-E., Michel, T., 2007. Agroclimatic constraints for rainfed
agriculture in the Bolivian Altiplano. J. Arid Environ. 71, 109121.
Gardiner, D., Miller, R., 2004. Soil in our environment. Tenth edition. USA. 640 pp.
Geert, S., 2004. Quinoa production in the Bolivian Altiplano: climatic constrains and
modelling of water productivity. MSc Dissertation. IUPWARE, K. U. Leuven Vrije
University Brussels, Belgium. 92 p.
Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Del Castillo, C., Buytaert, W., 2006. Agro-climatic
suitability mapping for crop production in the Bolivian Altiplano: A case study for quinoa,
Agr. Forest Meteorol. 139, 399-412.
Geerts, S., 2008. Deficit irrigation via crop water productivity modelling: Field research in
Bolivian Altiplano. Ph.D. Dissertation. Dissertationes de Agricultura No. 814. Faculty of
Agriculture and Applied Biological Sciences, K.U. Leuven, Belgium.
Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Vacher, J., Mamani, R., Mendoza, J., Huanca, R., Morales,
B., Miranda, R., Cusicanqui, J., Taboada, C., 2008a. Introducing deficit irrigation to
stabilize yields of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Eur. J. Agron. 28, 427-436.
Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Condori, O., Mamani. J., Miranda, R., Cusicanqui, G.,
Taboada, C., Yucra, E., Vacher, J., 2008b. Could deficit irrigation be a sustainable practice
for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in the Southern Bolivian Altiplano?, Agric. Water
Manage. 95, 909-917.
Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Mendoza, J., Huanca, R., 2008c. Indicators to quantify the
flexible phenology of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in response to drought stress.
Field Crop Res. 108, 150-156.
Geerts, S. Raes, D., 2008d. Deficit irrigation: maximizing the output of water in dry areas. In
Gabriel, D., Cornelis, W. M., and Hollebosch, P. (Eds): Combating desertification:
monitoring, adaptation and restoration strategies. UNESCO-Conference on desertification,
23 January 2008. Ghent, Belgium. Belgian Development Cooperation (DGOS), Brussels,
Belgium. Article in press.
Geerts S. Raes, D., 2009. Deficit irrigation as an on-farm strategy to maximize crop water
productivity in dry areas. Agric. Water Manage. 96, 12751284.
Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Miranda, R., Cusicanqui, J., Taboada, C., Mendoza, J.,
Huanca, R., Mamani, A., Condori, O., Mamani, J., Morales, B., Osco, V., Steduto, P.,
REFERENCES
65
2009a. Simulating yield response of quinoa to water availability with AquaCrop. Agron. J.
101, 499-508.
Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Taboada, C., Miranda, R., Cusicanqui, J., Mhizha, T.,
Vacher, J., 2009b. Modelling the potential for closing quinoa yield gaps under varying
water availability in the Bolivian Altiplano. Agri. Water Manage. Doi:
10.1016/j.agwat.2009.06.020.
Gyllenhaal, E. D., 2001. Neighborhood rocks: scoria basalt.
http://saltthesandbox.org/rocks/scoriabasalt.htm. Acceded April 2009.
Hatfield, J. L., Sauer, T. J., Prueger, J. H., 2001. Managing soils to achieve greater water use
efficiency: a review. Agron. J. 93, 271280.
Heng, L. K., Hsiao, T., Evett, S., Howell, T., Steduto, P., 2009. Validating the FAO
AquaCrop model for irrigated and water deficient field maize. Agron J. 101, 488-498.
Heng, L.K., Asseng, S., Mejahed, K., Rusan, M., 2007. Optimizing wheat productivity in two
rainfed environments of the West AsiaNorth Africa region using a simulation model. Eur.
J. Agron. 26, 121-129.
IRD, 2009. Rle de lagrodiversit dans ladaptation au climat : le cas de la quinoa dans
laltiplano bolivien. http://www.bo.ird.fr/spip.php?article410. Acceded April 2009.
Jacobsen, S.-E., Mujica, A., 1999. Resistencia de la quinua a la sequa y otros factores
abiticos adversos, y su mejoramiento. In: I Curso Internacional sobre: Fisiologa de la
resistencia a sequa en quinua (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Cip. Lima Per. pp. 71
78.
Jacobsen, S.-E., Mujica, A., Jensen C. R., 2003. The resistance of quinoa (Chenopodium
quinoa Willd.) to adverse abiotic factors. Food Rev. Int. 19, 99-109.
Jacquin, A. P., Shamseldin, A. Y., 2009. Sensitivity analysis of Takagi-Sugeno-Kang rainfall-
runoff fuzzy models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 41-55.
Jensen, C. R., Jacobsen, S.-E., Andersen, M. N., Nuez, N., Andersen, S.D., Rasmussen, L.,
Mogensen, V. O., 2000. Leaf gas exchange and water relation characteristics of field
quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) during soil drying. Eur. J. Agron. 13, 11-25.
Jury, W., Horton, R., 2004. Soil physics. Sixt edition. USA, 370 pp.
Katsura, S., Kosugi, K., Yamamoto, N., Mizuyama, T., 2006. Saturated and unsaturated
hydraulic conductivities and water retention characteristics of weathered granitic bedrock.
Vadose Zone J. 5, 35-47.
REFERENCES
66
Kosmas, C., Danalatos, N. G., Poesen, J., van Wesemael B., 1998. The effect of water vapour
adsorption on soil moisture content under Mediterranean climatic conditions. Agri.Water
Manage. 36, 157-168.
Ma, D., Shao, M., 2008. Simulating infiltration into stony soils with a dual-porosity model.
Eur. J. Soil Sci. 59, 950-959.
Mallants, D., Jacques, D., Vanclooster, M., Diels, J., Feyen, J., 1996. A stochastic approach to
simulate water flow in a macroporous soil. Geoderma 70, 299-324.
Manek, R., Kunle, O., Emeje, M., Builders, P., Rama, G., Lopez, G., Kolling, W., 2005.
Physical, thermal and sorption profile of starch obtained from Tacca leontopetaloides.
Starch/Strke 57, 55-61.
Manu, A., Bationo, A., Geiger, S. C., 1991. Fertility status of selected millet producing soil of
west Africa with emphasis on phosporus. Soil Sci. 152, 315320.
Miller, D. A., White, R. A., 1998. A conterminous United States multilayer soil
characteristics dataset for regional climate and hydrology modelling. Earth Interactions 2.
Ministerio de Agricultura y Asuntos Campesinos y Agropecuarios (MACA), 1988. Sistemas
de produccin de quinua en el Altiplano boliviano. La Paz, Bolivia. pp. 11 -13.
Mujica, A., Canahua, A., Saravia, R., 2001. Capitulo II. Agronoma del cultivo de la quinoa.
In: Mujica, A., Jacobsen, S.-E., Izquierdo, J., Marathee, J. P. (Eds.), Quinua
(chenopodium quinoa willd.) ancestral cultivo andino, alimento del presente y futuro.
Cultivos andinos, CD versin 1.0. FAO, Santiago, Chile.
zhan, S., zcan, M., Gkbulak, F., 2008. Effect of pumice addition on available water
capacity of different soil textural classes. BALWOIS Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia 27,
31 May 2008.
Prez, F. L., 1998. Conservation of soil moisture by different stone covers on alpine slopes
(Lassen California). Catena 33, 155-177.
Prez, F. L., 2000. The influence of surface volcaniclastic layers from Haleakala (Maui,
Hawaii) on soil water conservation. Catena 38, 301-332.
Poesen, J., Lavee, H., 1994. Rock fragments in top soils: significance and processes Catena
23, 1-28.
Raes, D., 2004. Irrigation Agronomy, lectures notes. K. U. Leuven Vrije University
Brussels, Belgium.
Raes, D., Willems, P., GBaguidi, F., 2006. RAINBOW a software package for analyzing
data and testing the homogeneity of historical data sets. Proceedings of the 4
th
International
REFERENCES
67
Workshop on Sustainable management of marginal drylands. Islamabad, Pakistan, 27-31
January 2006. Article in press.
Raes, D., Geerts, S., 2008. Irrigation design and management, Section Management, lecture
notes. IUPWARE, K. U. Leuven Vrije University Brussels, Belgium.
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., Fereres., E. 2009a. AquaCrop version 3.0, reference
manual. FAO. Rome, Italy.
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/infores_databases_AquaCrop.html. Acceded February 2009.
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., Fereres, E. 2009b. AquaCrop The FAO crop model to
simulate yield response to water: II. Main algorithms and software description. Agron. J.
101,438-447.
Risacher, F., Ritz, B., 1991. Geochemistry of Bolivian salars, Lipez, southern Altiplano:
Origin of solutes and brine evolution. Geochim. and Cosmochim. 55, 687-705.
Risi, J., 2001. Produccin de quinua en el Altiplano sur de Bolivia. In: Izquierdo, J., Mujica,
A., Jacobsen, S.-E., Marathee, J. P., Morn, C. (Eds.). Primer taller interinstitucional sobre
quinua, caractersticas de la quinua y manejo del cultivo. Cultivos andinos. CD versin 1.0.
FAO, Santiago, Chile.
Romano, N., Santini, A., 2002. Water retention and storage - field. In: Dane, J. H. and Topp,
G. C. (Eds.). Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Physical methods. SSSA Book Series 5, Soil
Science Society of America, Madison, USA, 721-738.
Rubin, J., 2008. Buoyancy K-12 Experiments and background information.
http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/physics/buoyancy.html. Acceded April 2009.
Rust A. C., Russell J. K., Knight R. J., 1999. Dielectric constant as a predictor of porosity in
dry volcanic rocks. J. Volcanology and Geothermal Res. 91, 79-96.
SAS Institute Inc., 2007. SAS/Stat. Software: changes and enhancements through release 9. 2.
Cary, NC, USA.
Saxton, K. E., Rawls, W. J., 2006. Water characteristic estimates by texture and organic
matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 1569-1578.
"Scoria." Encyclopedia Britannica., 2009. Encyclopdia Britannica Online.
http://www.britanica.com/EBchecked/topic/529333/scoria. Acceded April 2009.
SensorsONE Ltd, 2009. SensorONE presure sensor specialists. Pressure unit conversion and
converter. http://www.sensorsone.co.uk/pressure-units-conversion.html. Acceded October
2008.
REFERENCES
68
Soil moisture retention curves. http://www.nivaa.nl/explorer/pagina/pictures/pfcurvey.jpg.
Acceded May 2009.
SRC-SIBELCO., nd. SIBELITE
M002 - M006 - M0010. Dessel, Belgium.

Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., Raes, D., Fereres, E., 2009. AquaCrop - the FAO crop model to
simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts and underlying principles. Agron. J. 101, 426
-437.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2004. Igneous rocks, intrusive and extrusive.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicPast/Notes/igneous_rocks.html. Acceded
April 2009.
van Wesemael, B., Poesen, J., Kosmas, C. S., Danalatos, N. G., 1995. The role of rock
fragments in evaporation from cultivated soils under Mediterranean climatic conditions
Phys. Chem. Earth. 20, 293-299.
van Wesemael, B., Cammeraat , B., Mulligan, M., Burke, S., 2003. The impact of soil
properties and topography on drought vulnerability of rainfed cropping systems in southern
Spain Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 94, 115.
Verbist, K., Baetens, J., Cornelis, W. M., Gabriels, D., Torres, C., Soto, G., 2009. Hydraulic
conductivity as influenced by stoniness in degraded drylands of Chile. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
73:471-484.
Washington State University, 2009. Tree fruit soil nutrition.USA. http://soils.tfrec.wsu.edu
/mg/chemical.htm. Acceded March 2009.
Willems, P., 2007. Statistics for water engineering, lecture notes. IUPWARE, K. U. Leuven
Univerisity Vrije University Brussels, Belgium.
Xiao-Yan, L., 2002. Gravelsand mulch for soil and water conservation in the semiarid loess
region of northwest China. Catena 52,105-127.
Zhang, H., Oweis, T. Y., Garabet, S., Pala, M. 1998. Water-use efficiency and transpiration
efficiency of wheat under rainfed conditions and supplemental irrigation in a
Mediterranean-type environment. Plant and Soil 201, 295305.
Zimmerman, R. W., Bodvarsson, G. S., 1995. The effect of rock fragments on the hydraulics
properties of soil. Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Univeristy of Califronia, USA.
ANNEXES
69
6 Annexes
Table A1. Rainfall and temperatures from Salinas de Garci Mendoza nearby Irpani,
between 1975 and 1985 (Source: SENHAMI).
Temp. Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Annual
Tmin -7.2 -6.0 -3.3 -1.5 0.7 2.8 3.8 3.1 2.9 -0.1 -5.7 -6.3 -1,7***
Tmax 13.4 16.1 15.7 19.5 15.3 19.7 20.7 20.3 16.1 15.9 14.8 13.1 7,8***
Tmean 3.6 5.4 6.6 9.3 8.0 11.0 12.1 11.5 9.3 8.0 4.9 3.8 16,7***
pp 0.0 3.4 6.8 2.9 5.0 33.8 111.9 99.6 61.7 4.2 1.8 0.9 331,99*
* Sum and *** Average
Table A2. Chemical soil properties of soils in Irpani.
Unit
0-20
cm
20-40
cm
40-60
cm
Average
cm
C/N - 11.90 11.50 11.83 11.74
OM g kg
-1
3.60 3.18 3.66 3.48
pH - 7.47 7.45 7.70 7.54
N total g kg
-1
0.16 0.17 0.18 0.17
CaCO
3
total g kg
-1
< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
P
2
O
5
- Olsen g kg
-1
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
CEC -Metson cmol
+
kg
-1
3.21 3.77 4.69 3.89
MgO g kg
-1
0.10 0.12 0.16 0.13
Mg g kg
-1
0.06 0.07 0.10 0.08
K
2
O g kg
-1
0.22 0.20 0.25 0.22
K g kg
-1
0.18 0.17 0.21 0.19
Na
2
O g kg
-1
0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04
Na g kg
-1
0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03
N of NO
3
mg kg
-1
5.42 3.60 2.32 3.78
N of NH
4
mg kg
-1
0.57 0.63 1.23 0.81
EC mS cm
-1
0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03
CEC: Cation Exchange Capacity; OM: Organic Mat ter.
EC: Electrical Conductivity (Salinity).
ANNEXES
70
Table A3.Total bulk density (
b,t
b,rf
(
b,f
) of pure soil and soil - VRF mixture (Sibelite
M002).
VRF
(vol%)
N
b,t
(g cm
-
)
b,f
(g cm
-
)
b,rf
(g cm
-
)
Pure soil 0 5 1.23 0.02 - -
Soil -VRF mixture (class 1) 17 10 1.36 0.02 1.33 0.03 1.50 0.10
E1
Pure soil 0 7 1.23 0.00 - -
E2
E1: Experiment 1; E2: Experiment 2
Figure A1. Beckman Coulter LS 13 320 laser diffraction particle size.
ANNEXES
71
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Part icle diamet er (um)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
(
%
)
Figure A2. Differential volume (%) versus particle diameter (um) from Beckman
Coulter LS 13 320 laser diffraction particle size, Sibelite
M002 (), SL
1
(), SL
2
(X)
and Sand (), soil used to carry out the WRC of pure soil and soil-VRF mixtures.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Part icle diamet er (um)
C
u
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
(
%
)
Figure A3. Cumulative volume (%) versus particle diameter (um) from Beckman
Coulter LS 13 320 laser diffraction particle size, Sibelite
M002 (), SL
1
(), SL
2
(X)
and Sand (), soils used to carry out the WRC of pure soil and soil-VRF mixtures.

Veizaga 2009 Soil Water Aquacrop

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Veizaga 2009 Soil Water Aquacrop

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

I

M002 soil .......................................................................... 24

M002 soil .......................................................................... 55

M002). Error bars are 1 standard deviation.

M002). Error bars are 1 standard

M002, and experiment 3 is

M002 (Source: SRC - SIBELCO, nd). .............................................................. 12

M002). The letters show significant statistical groups (=0.05), m (mean) se

M002). The letters show significant statistical groups ( = 0.05), m (mean), se

M002) from experiment 1 (E-

M002) and different soil types, with different

M002, and experiment 3 is around

M002 (Source: SRC - SIBELCO, nd).

: X-ray Fluorescence method; BET: Brunauer, Emmett and Teller method.

M002) as well as for soil-VRF mixtures were

M002). It was done in order to asses

M002). Error bars are 1 standard

M002). The letters show significant statistical groups (=0.05), m (mean) se

M002). Error bars are 1

M002). The letters show significant statistical groups ( = 0.05), m (mean),

M002) was 670 mm day

M002) and volume of VRF (vol%) by means of pedotransfer functions, and

M002) from experiment

M002 - M006 - M0010. Dessel, Belgium.

Você também pode gostar