Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Complete Streets Design Criteria and Case Study in Naples, Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Flood Disaster Risk Assessment Based on DEA Model in Southeast Asia along “The Belt and Road”
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 20
10.3390/su142013147
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Targeting Subsoil Constraints in Southern Queensland: Concept Proof of Spraying Polyacrylamide for Subsoil Stabilisation during Tillage

by
Yingcan Zhu
1,*,
Aram Ali
1,
John McLean Bennett
1,2,
Chris Guppy
3 and
David McKenzie
1,4
1
Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Southern Queensland, West St, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
2
The Soil Company, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
3
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
4
Soil Management Designs, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(20), 13147; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013147
Submission received: 8 September 2022 / Revised: 30 September 2022 / Accepted: 30 September 2022 / Published: 13 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Deep ripping, in conjunction with gypsum and/or organic amendment, is known to be useful for removing physical constraints and improving crop yields in dispersive subsoils. However, the benefits are short-lived due to lateral movement of Na into soil between the rip lines, and slumping following the wetting of loosened soil, leaving low pore volume for air and water movement. This study evaluated the effect of high concentration polyacrylamide (PAM) solutions on stabilising soil structure, with a focus on PAM application on dispersive aggregates theoretically dislodged by ripping, as part of the subsoil decompaction. Three distinct soils (Vertosol, Kandosol, and Dermosol) from southern Queensland were treated to be sodic. These aggregates were further applied with PAM solutions under three scenarios, including: immersion, coating, and no application. In general, PAM stabilised soil aggregates with a concentration above 1.5 g L–1 when immersed into PAM solution or coated with PAM product, as compared to non-PAM-treated samples. The efficacy depended on PAM concentration, viscosity, soil type, and mechanical force. The concept of spraying PAM for stabilising the subsoil during tillage was proposed, as there is feasible potential for PAM to prolong the benefits of subsoil decompaction long enough through stabilising aggregate structure.

1. Introduction

Sodicity and compaction are the main subsoil constraints in southern Queensland agricultural land [1]. The build-up of sodium (Na+) ions in the subsoil is largely related to the aeolian activities, the weathering of rock and sediments, and the use of groundwater containing sodium bicarbonate [2]. The presence of subsoil sodicity reduces the effective rooting depth of crops and the amount of water that can be accessed from the soil. Subsoil compaction is commonly associated with increasing machinery weight [3], and a slow uptake of accurately implemented controlled traffic farming (CTF) systems [4,5]. Compaction adversely affects crop growth via a narrowing of limiting water ranges [6], i.e., excessive soil hardness when dry, and waterlogging when wet, which leads to excessive runoff and erosion.
Where compaction damage has occurred, soil loosening is required. This can be achieved through ‘biological decompaction’ whereby vertical shrinkage cracks and/or biopores are emplaced, via the use of rotation crops such as safflower. However, this process tends to be slow—much greater than one year, dependent on the frequency of drought—unless a high cation exchange capacity exists in the subsoil to encourage shrinking and swelling [7]. Immediate decompaction can be achieved when soil is loosened mechanically with ripping tines. However, even when deep ripping is carried out effectively and re-compaction by farm machinery is avoided, soil often slumps when rewet after ripping because of poor soil structural stability in water, e.g., dispersive soil. The soil structural form may end up being worse than before deep tillage. Consequently, Australian farmers are aware of the need for a pragmatic rapid decompaction and aggregate protection strategy that can be used whenever required.
To remove physical constraints and ensure that the chemical constraints causing dispersion are addressed simultaneously, the use of slotted gypsum—gypsum applied within the decompacted zone—has been investigated with mixed results [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Yield increases have been observed [12,14], but not always associated with better soil structure or increased available soil water capacity (ASWC), leading to recommendations for reapplication every 2–3 years. Favourable structural changes can occur in high clay content soils, but these are often short-lived, due to lateral movement of Na into columns of soil between the slots and through larger than normal lateral swelling pressures [8]. Consequently, additional subsoil ameliorant is required [12]. This is where polymers possibly have a role to play.
A number of studies have shown that polymers are available to improve agricultural soil in terms of aggregate stability, soil permeability, and preventing soil erosion, particularly anionic polyacrylamide (PAM) [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. An anionic PAM can adsorb (bridge) to soil particles through divalent cations [26,27], and has been shown to stabilise an existing soil structure by preserving the previous pore structure, but is unable to remediate a poor soil structure [28]. The addition of PAM to soil has shown to mitigate on-site and off-site impacts of erosion by decreasing runoff generation and erosion rate [29]. Polymer properties (molecular weight, charge type and density), soil characteristics (texture, structure and clay mineralogy), and water quality are critical for determining the adsorption ability of PAM [26,27,30,31].
The costs of PAM products are currently expensive [32], and consequently have often been applied at 1–20 kg per hectare in the form of either powder or low-concentration liquid (around 0.2 g L–1) at the soil surface [19,33]. Using the low concentration of PAM solution for subsoil amelioration can introduce excessive water, and it is also impractical to carry a large amount of water during tillage. Given the significant heterogeneity that exists for dispersive soils and other constraints [34,35,36,37], targeted application of PAM at a higher application rate could potentially provide a more economic approach to PAM use and be a strategy of merit in the long-term management of dispersive subsoils. This potentially affords applied gypsum increased time with which to ameliorate subsoils in the long-term, when applied in combination.
Thus, it is critical to determine whether high-concentration PAM solutions can stabilise the soil structure in situations where structurally unstable subsoil is known to slump badly after the ripping (and subsequent re-wetting) of soil profiles used for cropping, with or without gypsum/lime. We hypothesise that PAM solutions with a higher concentration are more effective in stabilising soil structure stability than that with lower concentrations. Therefore, this study aims to (1) investigate the effects of commercial PAM products on soil structural stability at a wide range of concentrations from 0.05 up to 6 g L–1 and (2) investigate the feasibility of using a PAM product as a subsoil application stabilisation strategy for subsoil.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Rationale

In order to establish polymers as a stabilisation strategy for subsoil, a number of factors need to be considered: (1) the viscosity of commercially available PAM products at varying concentrations; (2) the effect of PAM concentration on aggregate stability on dispersive soils; and (3) the application method of PAM. Therefore, this work combines a series of experiments that allow PAM feasibility to be tested, prior to the design of an application method for commercial-scale subsoil implementation. The viscosity of the PAM solutions was thus measured. In considering the application method, the immersion of aggregates in PAM is used as a positive control, with no treatment used as a traditional control. This provided a continuum on which to determine the efficacy of application from no application efficiency (control of no application) through to 100% application efficiency (immersion). We also investigated the effect of coating PAM on aggregates, which can be considered a closer-to-field scenario. Moreover, clay dispersion is examined when sodified soils are treated with PAM under external forces as a means to understand the energy that PAM-based aggregates can withstand without failure.

2.2. Soil Used

Three soils (a Vertosol, a Kandosol, and a Dermosol) with distinct mineral and textural properties were used in this study (Table 1) [38]. Dermosols and Vertosols are common soils for fibre (mainly cotton) and grain production in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales (NSW). Though Kandosols normally have low fertility, they are used for extensive agriculture, such as wheat production, in regions of southern Queensland. Bulk soils were collected from 0–30 cm depth. Soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were measured in a 1:5 soil water/water suspension. The exchangeable cations were extracted using 1 M ammonium chloride using method 15A2 as per Rayment and Lyons [39]. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) was calculated as a sum of exchangeable Na, K, Mg, and Ca. The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), cation ratio of soil structure stability (CROSS), exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), and exchangeable dispersive percentage (EDP) were calculated according to Rengasamy and Marchuk [40] and Bennett et al. [41]. Particle size distribution was determined using the hydrometer method [42]. Clay mineralogy was examined using X-ray diffraction. The Dermosol is dominated by kaolinite and smectite clays. The Vertosol is dominated by smectite clay, with clay content up to 60%, while the Kandosol is a sandy soil, dominated with kaolinite clay. Of the three soils, the Dermosol was the only soil that was initially dispersive. Soil dry aggregate size was determined using the dry-sieving method as an indicator of soil structure. One kilogram of air-dried, un-disturbed sample was sieved through sieves of 10.0, 4.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.6, 0.25, 0.15, and 0.075 mm. The weight percentage of each aggregate size class with respect to the total sample and dry mean weight diameter (dMWD) is shown in Table 1. As expected, Kandosol has the finest dry aggregates, while Vertosol has the largest aggregate size as indicated by their dMWD values.

2.3. Polymers

Three commercial anionic PAM products were used, including: (a) PAM-1, HYDRO-TAC, Polymer Innovations (Singleton, Australia); (b) PAM-2, CW Pacific Pty Ltd. (Mosman, Australia); and (c) PAM-3, Xinqi Chemical (Gongyi, China). The PAM products were supplied as powders. PAM solutions were prepared at concentrations of 0.05, 0.2, 0.4, 0.75, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 g L–1 using deionised water. This is because the higher ionic strength of tap water has effects on the dissolution of polymers and the interaction between the clay surface and PAM polymers [18,19]. The pH of PAM solutions with varying concentrations were close, with the majority sitting in the neutral range (Table 2). PAM-1 solutions exhibited the greatest EC compared to the others at an equivalent concentration.

2.4. Polymer Solution Viscosity

The viscosity of each PAM solution was determined using an Anton Paar MCR502 Rheometer. A PP25 parallel-plate measuring system was selected, which is suitable for a wide range test from low viscosity liquids to gel-like materials. A small amount of the solution was placed on a plate held at a controlled temperature at 25 °C. The PP25 head was then lowered to obtain full contact with the solution with negligible contact force. After removing the excess solution, the measuring bob started rotational movement with the shear rate increased from 1 to 100 s–1. The viscosity values were calculated as the result of shear stress divided by shear rate.

2.5. Soil Sodification

A method developed by Dodd et al. [43] was used to adjust the sodicity of soils. The soil collected from each site was air dried and passed through a 10 mm sieve to remove large organic matter. Approximately 600 g of soil was spread to 5 cm depth in a calico-lined plastic container with a perforated base. The calico lining allowed the passage of solution but not soil. Each of the soil containers was immersed to a depth of 6 cm in the treatment solution of SAR = 0, 15, 30, or 60 containing Na and Ca chloride salts at an EC of 8 dS m–1 to maintain aggregation. Each container was immersed for 4 h, drained for 1 h, and partially dried in an oven at 40 °C overnight. The immersion, drainage, and drying cycle was repeated six times. The excess salt was removed by submerging soils four times for 1 h in a low EC (2.0 dS m–1) solution at the respective SAR value. Between each immersion, the soils were allowed to drain for 1 h. The treated soils were then air dried. The pH and EC of treated soils were measured in a soil water ratio of 1:5 (m/v) (method 4A1 and 3A1) [39]. The exchangeable cations were measured on a Shimadzu Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (AA 7000), following the method of 15A2 [39]. After the sodification process, exchangeable K and Mg cations from each treatment remained largely unchanged (data not shown).

2.6. Soil Aggregate Stability

After soil sodification, 3–4 mm aggregates were collected from each SAR treatment. Aggregate stability was investigated in a range of PAM solution concentrations (0, 0.05, 0.2, 0.4, 0.75, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 g L–1). This aimed to simulate the worst-case scenario (untreated aggregate in deionised water) and best-case scenario (aggregate was treated with sufficient PAM solution). Slaking was scored at 10 min using five levels (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) in accordance with McMullen [44]. Dispersion was scored at 10 min, 2 h, and 20 h, which combines the approaches of Field et al. [45] and Loveday and Pyle [46]. The dispersion index (DI) was used to indicate the degree of spontaneous dispersion:
D I = s 1 + s 2 + 8 , s 1 + s 2 > 0 r 1 + r 2 , s 1 + s 2 = 0 , r 1 + r 2 > 0 0 , s 1 + s 2 = 0 , r 1 + r 2 = 0
where s1 and s2 are the scores for spontaneous dispersion observed at 10 min and 2 h, respectively; and r1 and r2 are the scores for dispersion after remoulding observed at 10 min and 2 h, respectively. However, in this study, remoulding was not considered for non-spontaneous dispersed aggregates due to the breakup process. Thus, possible scores for the DI range from 9 to 16, and NA used to indicate non-spontaneous dispersed aggregates.
A second series of these sodified soil aggregates were carefully coated using syringes filled with each PAM product at concentrations 0.75, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 g L–1. This was designed to mimic field-like circumstances where only the external surface of aggregates may be exposed to PAM applications. The coated aggregates were left on a mesh for air drying up to a week. After air drying, aggregate stability in deionised water was investigated and scored for slaking and dispersion in the same manner as aggregates immersed in PAM solutions described above.

2.7. Clay Dispersion

Sodified soils were treated with three PAM products (1.5 g L–1) at the application doses of 1.0 and 2.5 g polymer/kg soil [30]. The concentration of 1.5 g L–1 was chosen because of the volume of PAM solution needed to deliver those rates of fully coated aggregates without excess solution remaining. The polymer-treated soils were then air dried. Eight grams of PAM-treated soils were added with 40 mL deionised water and subjected to different kinetic forces using end over end shaker with a shaking scheme of 3 rotations, 2 min or 30 min at a speed of 30 rpm, in order to stimulate the force of spontaneous dispersion and mechanical conditions (rainfall, tillage, etc.). The turbidity of the dispersed clay particles (<2 µm) was measured using a Hach N2100 Turbidimeter. The turbidity was then converted to the dispersed clay percentage of a soil basis according to the method described in Zhu et al. [47]. Due to the low clay content of the Red Kandosol, all dispersed clay percentages were reported on a clay basis in this study, i.e., dispersed clay percentage of a soil basis divided by soil clay content.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there were any statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the viscosity of three PAM products at each concentration. The dispersed clay percentages between PAM treatments and shaking schemes were also statistically investigated. Posthoc analysis was undertaken using Tukey’s test (p < 0.05) to determine pairs with significant differences where ANOVA determined that there was a significant difference in the normal distribution of data.

3. Results

3.1. Polymer Viscosity Evaluation

The viscosity investigation demonstrated that the PAM solutions are non-Newtonian fluids, which should be expected (Figure 1). The viscosity of the polymers followed the sequence PAM-3 > PAM-1 > PAM-2 at equivalent conditions (the same concentration and shear rate). In general, with increasing shear rate, the viscosity of each PAM solution decreased. However, at a high shear rate and concentration greater than 1.5 g L–1 (Figure 1a,c), PAM-1 and PAM-3 were observed to increase their viscosity at a high shear rate, which could be an artefact whereby the centrifugal effect of the polymer at high shear rate resulted in less contact surface between the measuring plate and PAM liquid [48].

3.2. Soil Sodicity Evaluation

The aggregate sodification process successfully increased soil ESP from < 2% to nearly 30% in each soil without markedly increasing salinity (Table 3). The higher CEC of the Vertosol resulted in greater buffering against the sodification procedure compared with the other two soils. With the exception of the Dermosol, soil pH only increased by 0.3.

3.3. Soil Aggregate Stability upon Immersion

When immersed in deionised water, soil aggregates slaked immediately, including SAR 0 treated samples (Figure 2a). Slaking indicated that the soil aggregates were unstable when immersed in water, due to entrapped air and shear stresses from swelling [49,50]. When aggregates were immersed in PAM solutions, aggregate slaking decreased as the PAM concentration increased, irrespective of the PAM product. In general, with a polymer concentration above 1.5 g L–1, the aggregates exhibited no slaking (Figure 2a) for three soils. Soil aggregates similarly showed less dispersion with increasing polymer concentration (Figure 2b). Above concentrations of 0.2 g L–1 of PAM solutions, no spontaneous dispersion (10 min + 2 h) was observed in any sample.

3.4. Soil Aggregate Stability of PAM-Coated Samples upon Immersion

The concentration of PAM solutions at 0.75, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 g L–1 was selected for coating. The coated aggregates generally showed improved structural stability compared to the uncoated aggregates (Figure 3). Above the 1.5 g L–1 concentration, the majority of aggregates did not slake. It is also noted that no slaking was found in PAM-coated aggregates that were previously treated with SAR0, SAR15, and SAR 30 solutions. In addition, PAM-coated aggregates generally dispersed less than non-PAM-coated ones. In particular, no dispersion was found in PAM-coated aggregates for each of the soils that were previously treated with SAR0 and SAR15 solutions. Dermosol aggregates showed more dispersion than the other two soil aggregates, when treated with SAR 30 and 60 solutions, which could be related to the fact that Dermosol was initially dispersive.

3.5. Spontaneous and Mechanically Dispersed Clay

Soils that were treated with PAM released less dispersed clay than the untreated samples under the equivalent condition, irrespective of soil type, sodicity level, PAM product, or shaking scheme. A significant difference (p < 0.05) in dispersed clay percentage exists between the control (untreated) and (i) PAM-treated Dermosol under the scheme of spontaneous and 2 min shaking, irrespective of the SAR value or the PAM product (Figure 4); (ii) SAR 30 and 60 treated Vertosols, under each level of kinetic force, except SAR30 M4+PAM-1 (PAM-1 solution added into SAR30 sodified M4 soils) at 1 g kg–1 (Figure 5) and (iii) sodified Kandosols under each level of kinetic force (Figure 6).
The PAM-1 and PAM-3 of 1 g kg–1 on high ESP Dermosol was not sufficient to reduce clay dispersion under 30 min shaking and was not different to the untreated samples. However, when the application rate increased from 1.0 to 2.5 g kg–1, a significant difference (p < 0.05) existed between PAM-treated and untreated aggregates. Similarly, a significant difference (p < 0.05) was found among three PAM products at an application rate of 1 g kg–1 for the Vertosol. Only when the PAM application dose further increased to 2.5 g kg–1 did the dispersed clay percentage of sodified Vertosols decrease substantially, without a significant difference between each PAM product. In contrast, for the low clay content Kandosol, the application dose of 2.5 g kg–1 yielded a lower dispersed clay percentage but no significant difference to that of the application dose of 1.0 g kg–1.

4. Discussion

4.1. PAM Coating Increased Soil Aggregate Stability

Three scenarios were investigated in terms of the effect of PAM on soil aggregate stability, including: (i) a best-case scenario where soil aggregates were immersed with sufficient PAM solution to observe any beneficial effect of PAM as affected by source and concentration, ignoring the cost and application practicality; (ii) a closer-to-field scenario where soil aggregates were variably coated with PAM, air-dried, and then immersed in deionised water; and (iii) the worst-case scenario, untreated soil aggregates immersed in deionised water.
Notably, with PAM concentrations above 1.5 g L–1, both immersing soil aggregates into PAM solution and coating aggregates with PAM effectively prevented slaking in comparison to the worst-case scenario, irrespective of the dominant clay minerals. Mamedov et al. [19] reported that the effectiveness of PAM in improving aggregate stability followed in the order of kaolinitic < illitic < smectitic soils, but they only used 0.2 g L–1 PAM solutions for coating aggregates. This confirmed that PAM stabilises aggregates, but efficacy depends on concentration. This further suggests that PAM can effectively prevent soil slumping with the open trench with a concentration up to 1.5 g L–1 of the three commercial products (Figure A1). The coated PAM aggregates dispersed less than untreated aggregates, but coating was less effective in preventing clay dispersion than full immersion. For example, no dispersion was found when sodic aggregates were placed in PAM solutions at 0.75–6 g L–1 (Figure 2), while dispersion was observed for SAR 30 and 60 treated Dermosol aggregates, even with the coating concentration up to 6 g L–1 (Figure 3). Similar findings were observed for Vertosol and Kandosol aggregates. Sojka et al. [51] suggested that PAM has a stretchable molecular configuration and when dissolved in water, it can be coiled (shorter) or stretched (longer) due to either substitutions along the chain or the electrolytes in the water. We postulated that after air drying, the long chain PAM molecules coiled together and may not have covered the entire aggregate surface. The reduced efficacy of coating aggregates with PAM over immersing may relate to a difference in time for coiled PAM chains to dissolve and stretch upon re-wetting with dilute water which required time to fully dissolve (stretched) and adsorb [52,53] compared to the time for water to ingress into the aggregates themselves. Furthermore, noticeable swelling was observed for sodic Dermosol and Vertosol aggregates due to the smectite clay. Consequently, the non-PAM adsorbed soil particles, including the microaggregates within larger aggregates that have not been externally coated may be exposed to deionised water, driving the observed dispersion. A similar result was reported by McLaughlin and Bartholomew [54] where increased soil smectite content reduced the effectiveness of anionic PAM on flocculation of soil suspensions. Further research is warranted into aggregate water ingress and dynamics of PAM-coated aggregates in the presence and absence of cations (that may be co-applied with gypsum) on the rates of swelling of PAM monomers.

4.2. Effect of PAM on Soil Aggregate Stability Related to its Concentration, Viscosity, Application Rate, Soil Characteristics, and Mechanical Force

Soil aggregate stability tests confirmed that coating with PAM can maintain soil integrity and effectively prevent spontaneous clay dispersion when PAM is above 1.5 g L–1. Apart from the concentration, the effect of PAM on soil aggregate stability was related to its viscosity. PAM-3, which was more viscous (p < 0.05) than the other two PAM products at an equivalent condition, was better able to prevent aggregate slaking (Figure 2a), despite PAM-1 maintaining a higher EC (and hence a greater tendency to flocculate clay due to salinity) (Table 2). In general, the presence of electrolytes suppresses the thickness of the diffuse double layer at clay surfaces, resulting in decreased repulsive forces between clay particles [55,56], and consequently better structural stability. The results here suggest that PAM had a profound effect in stabilising aggregates; further, that the stabilising effect of PAM was largely related to the adsorptive behaviour of the polymer molecules onto soil particles, where PAM with the greater viscosity had better performance. Thus, we would suggest that PAM viscosity is a strong indicator of aggregate stabilisation performance, which should be considered together with the known effects of concentration, molecular weight, charge type and density of PAM [28,50].
The results from spontaneous and mechanical dispersion tests suggested that the effect of PAM on soil aggregate stability is related to the application rate of PAM, soil characteristics, and mechanical forces. In general, increased clay dispersion was found with increased sodicity of soil at an equivalent PAM application rate. For light texture (low clay content) soils even under strong mechanical force, the PAM application rate of 1 g kg–1 was sufficient in preventing clay dispersion, which was also not sensitive to the PAM product. In contrast, for heavy clay soil, a higher PAM application rate may be required. These factors, including PAM concentration, viscosity, application rate, and soil characteristics (sodicity level, texture) should all be considered for spray application testing.

4.3. Concept Design, Practical Implications, and Economic Considerations

Through the results of the above laboratory work, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that applying PAM into ripped slots is a promising strategy for preventing aggregates from slaking and clay dispersion. In addition, PAM improves water-holding capacity [57,58], and may increase the potential water source for plant use and/or gypsum dissolution. Thus, we expect that soils treated with PAM can maintain structure and porosity such that longer-term structural stability through gypsum dissolution and reduced ESP has the requisite time to develop.
The concept of spraying PAM solution to stabilise dispersive subsoil during tillage is depicted in Figure 7. Multiple nozzles fixed to the trailing face of the deep ripping blades, with the nozzle opening horizontally, is likely to be adopted, so as to spray at the required depth. The nozzles spray pressurised PAM solution onto the disturbed soils, theoretically leaving coated, and possibly well mixed, soils along ripping line. It is acknowledged that the aggregate surface under spraying process may not be fully covered with PAM solution, and would not be equivalent to immersion techniques used to assess the feasibility of surface irrigation solutions containing PAM.
Further practical and economic considerations should be noted before undertaking field testing:
  • Feasibility for spraying: The viscosity of PAM solution is an important parameter in deciding the feasibility of spray and to select the suitable nozzles [59]. Spraying the concentrated and viscous PAM solution can be difficult [53]. At a 3 g L–1 concentration and very low shear rate (s–1), the viscosity ranges between approximately 300 and 2500 mPa∙s, which, for ease of comparison, is within the Society for Automobile Engineers (SAE) 20 to SAE 60 motor oil [60], the latter actually being polymer thickened. An order of magnitude increase in shear rate (s–1) resulted in a reduction in viscosity to between approximately 150 and 450 mPa∙s, equivalent to the SAE 20 to SAE 30 motor oil range. The purpose of this comparison to engine oil is to ensure pressurised flow and spray [61], and by extension we would expect this to be feasible for PAM in solution with water. While the presented results, and consideration of engine oil, suggest it would be feasible to apply PAM via a spray-based mechanism into ripped slots, further work will be needed to determine the surface tension and subsequent effect on spray nozzle spread, as well as droplet size and efficiency of coating [59]. The temperature of the solution should also be considered within the ambient range, and where higher flow rate difficulties are encountered.
  • Application concentration: In considering the aggregate stability results, PAM concentrations ≥1.5 g L–1 were recommended. However, the required amount of water and viscosity of PAM solution vary significantly, which further affects the selection of spraying nozzle, pump pressure, and flow rate.
  • PAM degradation: Spraying PAM through pressure pumps may affect the structure and viscosity, and the subsequent effect on soil structural stability needs to be evaluated. A high molecular PAM can degrade under light exposure, which generates free radicals leading to chain scission [62]. Ideally, after spraying PAM product into ripped slots, it should not be exposed to sunlight unless another deep ripping is undertaken. Chemical degradation, similar to photolytic degradation, could occur when PAM interacts with free radicals, such as oxygen and dissolved Fe2+. The high molecular weight of PAM makes it less accessible to microbial degradation, and only few microorganisms utilise the amide group as a nitrogen and/or carbon source [63]. The degraded monomer acrylamide is toxic to most microorganisms, but some bacteria and fungi can further degrade it to a final product of ammonium, CO2, and water [64].
  • Dual application with gypsum: When gypsum particulate and PAM solution are both applied into the subsoil during tillage, the water from the PAM solution is likely to facilitate the dissolution of gypsum, though it is also dependent on gypsum particle size, temperature, etc. The co-application of gypsum and PAM to sodic soil may be more effective than either application alone in reducing dispersion [65] and improving crop yield [66].
  • Economics: In consideration of subsoil treatment between 20 and 80 cm depth and an opening width of 1 cm (PAM-treated zone), one hectare would require 18 kg PAM (over USD 90), at an application rate of 1.0 g kg–1 PAM/soil on the aggregate surface (with an average diameter 5 cm). This is based on PAM not penetrating aggregates [67]. Further, the actual application rate can be varying, which is depending on soil texture and other factors. Considering that greater rates might be required, the use of PAM as a ubiquitous application is not readily economically feasible. However, the application of PAM into subsoil may be economically achieved by using it tactically in stabilising recently established rip lines within dispersive soils only; i.e., only applied where needed, which could be determined using the approaches explained in Roberton et al. [36]. Other cost includes deep ripping, gypsum, operation, water, and pump systems.

5. Conclusions

This study showed that PAM with a high concentration stabilises soil aggregates from a Vertosol, a Kandosol, and a Dermosol and prevents slaking and dispersion owing to its adsorptive properties. Aggregates that were coated with PAM dispersed less than the untreated aggregates. The specific efficiency depended on a range of factors, including polymer concentration, application rate and viscosity, water quality, soil characteristics, and external forces. The addition of PAM to soil has a valuable role to play where the subsoil becomes more sodic because of the presence of a sodium-rich leachate generated by amelioration of the sodic topsoil with gypsum. The results suggest that spraying the polymer into ripped slots to stabilise soil aggregates and maintain inter-aggregate porosity is practically feasible and economically viable when used tactically. Field studies with a prototype PAM injector attached to deep ripping equipment are recommended to further explore the concept on compacted/dispersive agricultural soil. The prevention of compaction is of course preferable to the complicated and expensive process of repair via mechanical loosening and stabilisation of the resultant products of tillage. However, until farmers have effective controlled traffic farming systems and freedom from pre-existing structural form problems, it is essential that pragmatic and reliable decompaction technologies be developed for farmers as quickly as possible, which possibly involves PAM application to stabilise subsoil aggregates.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, J.M.B.; methodology, Y.Z. and A.A.; software, Y.Z.; validation, Y.Z., A.A., J.M.B., C.G. and D.M.; formal analysis, Y.Z.; investigation, Y.Z. and A.A.; resources, Y.Z. and C.G.; data curation, Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z., J.M.B. and D.M.; writing—review and editing, Y.Z., A.A., J.M.B., C.G. and D.M.; visualisation, Y.Z.; supervision, J.M.B., C.G. and D.M.; project administration, J.M.B., Y.Z., A.A., C.G. and D.M.; funding acquisition, J.M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Cotton Research and Development Corporation [USQ1903] and the Grains Research and Development Corporation [USQ1803-002RTX].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for technical assistance from Stirling Roberton and David West.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Sustainability 14 13147 g0a1 550
Figure A1. The comparison of aggregate structural stability of the Eldorado SAR60 EC1 sample after sitting for 2 h: massive dispersing in deionised water (a); no dispersion in PAM-1 (b), PAM-2 (c), and PAM-3 (d) solution at 1.5 g L–1 concentration.
Figure A1. The comparison of aggregate structural stability of the Eldorado SAR60 EC1 sample after sitting for 2 h: massive dispersing in deionised water (a); no dispersion in PAM-1 (b), PAM-2 (c), and PAM-3 (d) solution at 1.5 g L–1 concentration.
Sustainability 14 13147 g0a1

References

  1. Dang, Y.P.; Dalal, R.C.; Routley, R.; Schwenke, G.D.; Daniells, I. Subsoil constraints to grain production in the cropping soils of the north-eastern region of Australia: An overview. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2006, 46, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Cassidy, N. Effect of Irrigation Water on Heavy Clay Soils at Dalby; Queensland Department of Primary Industries: Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  3. Keller, T.; Sandin, M.; Colombi, T.; Horn, R.; Or, D. Historical increase in agricultural machinery weights enhanced soil stress levels and adversely affected soil functioning. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Antille, D.L.; Bennett, J.M.; Jensen, T.A. Soil compaction and controlled traffic considerations in Australian cotton-farming systems. Crop Pasture Sci. 2016, 67, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bennett, J.; Woodhouse, N.P.; Keller, T.; Jensen, T.A.; Antille, D.L. Advances in cotton harvesting technology: A review and implications for the John Deere round baler cotton picker. J. Cotton Sci. 2015, 19, 225–249. [Google Scholar]
  6. McKenzie, D.; McBratney, A. Cotton root growth in a compacted Vertisol (Grey Vertosol). I. Prediction using strength measurements and ‘limiting water ranges’. Soil Res. 2001, 39, 1157–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kay, B. Rates of change of soil structure under different cropping systems. In Advances in Soil Science 12; Stewart, B.A., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
  8. Blackwell, P.S.; Jayawardane, N.S.; Green, T.W.; Wood, J.T.; Blackwell, J.; Beatty, H.J. Subsoil macropore space of a transitional red-brown earth after either deep tillage, gypsum or both. II. Chemical effects and long term changes. Soil Res. 1991, 29, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Blaikie, S.J.; Kelly, K.B.; Mason, W.K.; Martin, F.M. Productivity of irrigated pastures following paraplowing and gypsum slotting of subsoil exposed by laser landforming dash a short term study. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1988, 39, 837–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jayawardane, N.S.; Blackwell, J. The effect of gypsum enriched slots on moisture environment and aeration in an irrigated swelling clay. Aust. J. Soil Res. 1985, 23, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kelly, K.B. Effects of soil modification and treading on pasture growth and physical properties of an irrigated red-brown earth. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1985, 36, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. McBeath, T.M.; Grant, C.D.; Murray, R.S.; Chittleborough, D.J. Effects of subsoil amendments on soil physical properties, crop response, and soil water quality in a dry year. Soil Res. 2010, 48, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nuttall, J.G.; Armstrong, R.D.; Connor, D.J. The effect of boron tolerance, deep ripping with gypsum, and water supply on subsoil water extraction of cereals on an alkaline soil. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2005, 56, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Prathapar, S.A.; Aslam, M.; Kahlown, M.A.; Iqbal, Z.; Qureshi, A.S. Gypsum slotting to ameliorate sodic soils of Pakistan. Irrig. Drain. 2005, 54, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stockdale, C.R. Irrigated pasture productivity and its variability in the Shepparton region of northern Victoria. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1983, 23, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ekebafe, L.; Ogbeifun, D.; Okieimen, F. Polymer applications in agriculture. Biokemistri 2011, 23, 81–89. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wallace, A.; Terry, R.E. Handbook of Soil Conditionerssubstances That Enhance the Physical Properties of Soil; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  18. Levy, G.J.; Warrington, D.N. Polyacrylamide addition to soils: Impacts on soil structure and stability. In Functional Polymers in Food Science; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 9–31. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mamedov, A.; Wagner, L.; Huang, C.; Norton, L.; Levy, G. Polyacrylamide effects on aggregate and structure stability of soils with different clay mineralogy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 1720–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Al-Abed, N.; Amayreh, J.; Shudifat, E.; Qaqish, L.; El-Mehaisin, G. Polyacrylamide (PAM) effect on irrigation induced soil erosion and infiltration. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2003, 49, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ben-Hur, M.; Malik, M.; Letey, J.; Mingelgrin, U. Adsorption of polymers on clays as affected by clay charge and structure, polymer properties, and water quality. Soil Sci. 1992, 153, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Letey, J. Adsorption and desorption of polymers on soil. Soil Sci. 1994, 158, 244–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, J.; Song, Z.; Bai, Y.; Chen, Z.; Wei, J.; Wang, Y.; Qian, W. Laboratory Tests on Effectiveness of Environment-Friendly Organic Polymer on Physical Properties of Sand. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2018, 2018, 5865247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Sepaskhah, A.; Shahabizad, V. Effects of water quality and PAM application rate on the control of soil erosion, water infiltration and runoff for different soil textures measured in a rainfall simulator. Biosys. Eng. 2010, 106, 513–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yang, Q.; Pei, X.; Huang, R. Impact of polymer mixtures on the stabilization and erosion control of silty sand slope. J. Mt. Sci. 2019, 16, 470–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kebede, B.; Tsunekawa, A.; Haregeweyn, N.; Mamedov, A.I.; Tsubo, M.; Fenta, A.A.; Meshesha, D.T.; Masunaga, T.; Adgo, E.; Abebe, G. Effectiveness of Polyacrylamide in Reducing Runoff and Soil Loss under Consecutive Rainfall Storms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Green, V.S.; Stott, D.; Norton, L.; Graveel, J. Polyacrylamide molecular weight and charge effects on infiltration under simulated rainfall. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1786–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Mamedov, A.; Beckmann, S.; Huang, C.; Levy, G. Aggregate stability as affected by polyacrylamide molecular weight, soil texture, and water quality. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 1909–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Mamedov, A.I.; Tsunekawa, A.; Haregeweyn, N.; Tsubo, M.; Fujimaki, H.; Kawai, T.; Kebede, B.; Mulualem, T.; Abebe, G.; Wubet, A. Soil structure stability under different land uses in association with polyacrylamide effects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dodd, K.; Guppy, C.; Lockwood, P.V.; Rochester, I.J. The effect of sodicity on cotton: Does soil chemistry or soil physical condition have the greater role? Crop Pasture Sci. 2013, 64, 806–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Laird, D.A. Bonding between polyacrylamide and clay mineral surfaces. Soil Sci. 1997, 162, 826–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Green, V.S.; Stott, D. Polyacrylamide: A review of the use, effectiveness, and cost of a soil erosion control amendment. In Proceedings of the 10th International Soil Conservation Organization Meeting, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 23–28 May 1999; pp. 384–389. [Google Scholar]
  33. Nadler, A.; Perfect, E.; Kay, B.D. Effect of polyacrylamide application on the stability of dry and wet aggregates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1996, 60, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oliver, Y.; Wong, M.; Robertson, M.; Wittwer, K. PAWC determines spatial variability in grain yield and nitrogen requirement by interacting with rainfall on northern WA sandplain. In Proceedings of the 13th Australian Agronomy Conference, Perth, Australia, 10–14 September 2006; pp. 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  35. Roberton, S.D.; Lobsey, C.R.; Bennett, J.M. A Bayesian approach toward the use of qualitative information to inform on-farm decision making: The example of soil compaction. Geoderma 2021, 382, 114705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Roberton, S.D.; Bennett, J.M.; Lobsey, C.R.; Bishop, T.F. Assessing the Sensitivity of Site-Specific Lime and Gypsum Recommendations to Soil Sampling Techniques and Spatial Density of Data Collection in Australian Agriculture: A Pedometric Approach. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Filippi, P.; Jones, E.J.; Ginns, B.J.; Whelan, B.M.; Roth, G.W.; Bishop, T.F. Mapping the depth-to-soil pH constraint, and the relationship with cotton and grain yield at the within-field scale. Agronomy 2019, 9, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Isbell, R. The Australian Soil Classification; CSIRO Publishing: Clayton South, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rayment, G.E.; Lyons, D.J. Soil Chemical Methods: Australasia; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rengasamy, P.; Marchuk, A. Cation ratio of soil structural stability (CROSS). Soil Res. 2011, 49, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bennett, J.M.; Marchuk, A.; Marchuk, S. An alternative index to ESP for explanation of dispersion occurring in soils. Soil Res. 2016, 54, 949–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gee, G.W.; Bauder, J.W. Particle-size analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods; Klute, A., Ed.; The American Society of Agronomy, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 383–411. [Google Scholar]
  43. Dodd, K.; Guppy, C.; Lockwood, P. Overcoming the confounding effects of salinity on sodic soil research. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2010, 41, 2211–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. McMullen, B. SOILpak for Vegetable Growers; NSW Agriculture: Orange, Australia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  45. Field, D.J.; McKenzie, D.C.; Koppi, A.J. Development of an improved Vertisol stability test for SOILpak. Soil Res. 1997, 35, 843–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Loveday, J.; Pyle, J.C. Emerson Dispersion Test and Its Relationship to Hydraulic Conductivity; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization: Melbourne, Australia, 1973; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhu, Y.; Marchuk, A.; Bennett, J.M. Rapid method for assessment of soil structural stability by turbidimeter. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016, 80, 1629–1637. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ewoldt, R.H.; Johnston, M.T.; Caretta, L.M. Experimental challenges of shear rheology: How to avoid bad data. In Complex Fluids in Biological Systems; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 207–241. [Google Scholar]
  49. Emerson, W. The slaking of soil crumbs as influenced by clay mineral composition. Soil Res. 1964, 2, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Green, V.S.; Stott, D.E.; Graveel, J.G.; Norton, L.D. Stability analysis of soil aggregates treated with anionic polyacrylamides of different molecular formulations. Soil Sci. 2004, 169, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sojka, R.E.; Bjorneberg, D.L.; Entry, J.A.; Lentz, R.D.; Orts, W.J. Polyacrylamide in agriculture and environmental land management. Adv. Agron. 2007, 92, 75–162. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lu, J.; Wu, L.; Letey, J. Effects of soil and water properties on anionic polyacrylamide sorption. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 578–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abrol, V.; Shainberg, I.; Lado, M.; Ben-Hur, M. Efficacy of dry granular anionic polyacrylamide (PAM) on infiltration, runoff and erosion. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2013, 64, 699–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McLaughlin, R.A.; Bartholomew, N. Soil factors influencing suspended sediment flocculation by polyacrylamide. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 537–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bennett, J.M.; Marchuk, A.; Marchuk, S.; Raine, S.R. Towards predicting the soil-specific threshold electrolyte concentration of soil as a reduction in saturated hydraulic conductivity: The role of clay net negative charge. Geoderma 2019, 337, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Stojek, Z. The electrical double layer and its structure. In Electroanalytical Methods; Scholz, F., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  57. Liu, D.; Ren, S.-M.; Yang, P.-L. Influence of PAM to Soil Hydraulic Conductivity and Water Holding Capacity. J. Irrig. Drain. 2006, 25, 56–59. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sivapalan, S. Benefits of treating a sandy soil with a crosslinked-type polyacrylamide. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2006, 46, 579–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Davanlou, A.; Lee, J.D.; Basu, S.; Kumar, R. Effect of viscosity and surface tension on breakup and coalescence of bicomponent sprays. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2015, 131, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. McMillan, M.L. Engine oil viscosity classifications-past, present, and future. In The Relationship between Engine Oil Viscosity and Engine Performance; ASTM International: Detroit, MI, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bush, S.G. High Viscosity Pump Sprayer Utilizing Fan Spray Nozzle. U.S. Patent 5,639,025, 17 June 1997. [Google Scholar]
  62. Xiong, B.; Loss, R.D.; Shields, D.; Pawlik, T.; Hochreiter, R.; Zydney, A.L.; Kumar, M. Polyacrylamide degradation and its implications in environmental systems. npj Clean Water 2018, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wen, Q.; Chen, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Feng, Y. Biodegradation of polyacrylamide by bacteria isolated from activated sludge and oil-contaminated soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 175, 955–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Joshi, S.J.; Abed, R.M. Biodegradation of polyacrylamide and its derivatives. Environ. Process. 2017, 4, 463–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sivapalan, S. Effect of gypsum and polyacrylamides on water turbidity and infiltration in a sodic soil. Soil Res. 2005, 43, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Sivapalan, S. Soybean responds to amelioration of sodic soils using polyacrylamides. Irrig. Aust. 2003, 18, 45–47. [Google Scholar]
  67. Malik, M.; Letey, J. Adsorption of polyacrylamide and polysaccharide polymers on soil materials. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1991, 55, 380–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 13147 g001 550
Figure 1. The viscosity (mPa∙s, log scale) of PAM products against shear rate (s–1, log scale) at 25 °C and concentration from 0.05 to 6 g L–1: (a) PAM-1, (b) PAM-2, and (c) PAM-3.
Figure 1. The viscosity (mPa∙s, log scale) of PAM products against shear rate (s–1, log scale) at 25 °C and concentration from 0.05 to 6 g L–1: (a) PAM-1, (b) PAM-2, and (c) PAM-3.
Sustainability 14 13147 g001
Sustainability 14 13147 g002 550
Figure 2. The (a) slaking (b) spontaneous dispersion indices of SAR-treated aggregates (with final ESP listed) in PAM solutions of concentrations of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.75, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 g L–1 (x axis), respectively. The slaking scores at five levels (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4) were depicted by the colour from white to dark green. The dispersion index was depicted by no dispersion (white) and spontaneous dispersion (yellow to dark green).
Figure 2. The (a) slaking (b) spontaneous dispersion indices of SAR-treated aggregates (with final ESP listed) in PAM solutions of concentrations of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.75, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 g L–1 (x axis), respectively. The slaking scores at five levels (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4) were depicted by the colour from white to dark green. The dispersion index was depicted by no dispersion (white) and spontaneous dispersion (yellow to dark green).
Sustainability 14 13147 g002
Sustainability 14 13147 g003 550
Figure 3. The slaking and spontaneous dispersion indices of SAR-treated aggregates (with final ESP listed) coated with PAM solution of concentrations of 0, 0.75, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 g L–1 (x axis). The slaking scores at five levels (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4) were depicted by the colour from white to dark green. The dispersion index was depicted by no dispersion (white) and spontaneous dispersion (yellow to dark green).
Figure 3. The slaking and spontaneous dispersion indices of SAR-treated aggregates (with final ESP listed) coated with PAM solution of concentrations of 0, 0.75, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 g L–1 (x axis). The slaking scores at five levels (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4) were depicted by the colour from white to dark green. The dispersion index was depicted by no dispersion (white) and spontaneous dispersion (yellow to dark green).
Sustainability 14 13147 g003
Sustainability 14 13147 g004 550
Figure 4. The dispersed clay percentage (%, log scale) in clay basis of the SAR-solution-treated Dermosols when applied with PAM solution at rate of 1.0 or 2.5 g kg–1 under three shaking schemes: (a) 3 rotations; (b) 2 min; and (c) 30 min. The bars represent the standard error and the lowercase letters represent significant differences in each SAR-solution-treated soils.
Figure 4. The dispersed clay percentage (%, log scale) in clay basis of the SAR-solution-treated Dermosols when applied with PAM solution at rate of 1.0 or 2.5 g kg–1 under three shaking schemes: (a) 3 rotations; (b) 2 min; and (c) 30 min. The bars represent the standard error and the lowercase letters represent significant differences in each SAR-solution-treated soils.
Sustainability 14 13147 g004
Sustainability 14 13147 g005 550
Figure 5. The dispersed clay percentage (%, log scale) in clay basis of SAR-solution-treated Vertosols when applied with PAM solution at a rate of 1.0 or 2.5 g kg–1 under three shaking schemes: (a) 3 rotations; (b) 2 min; and (c) 30 min. The bars represent the standard error and the lowercase letters represent significant differences in each SAR-solution-treated soils.
Figure 5. The dispersed clay percentage (%, log scale) in clay basis of SAR-solution-treated Vertosols when applied with PAM solution at a rate of 1.0 or 2.5 g kg–1 under three shaking schemes: (a) 3 rotations; (b) 2 min; and (c) 30 min. The bars represent the standard error and the lowercase letters represent significant differences in each SAR-solution-treated soils.
Sustainability 14 13147 g005
Sustainability 14 13147 g006 550
Figure 6. The dispersed clay percentage (%, log scale) in clay basis of SAR-solution-treated Kandosols when applied with PAM solution at rate of 1.0 or 2.5 g kg–1 under three shaking schemes: (a) 3 rotations; (b) 2 min; and (c) 30 min. The bars represent the standard error and the lowercase letters represent significant differences in each SAR-solution-treated soils.
Figure 6. The dispersed clay percentage (%, log scale) in clay basis of SAR-solution-treated Kandosols when applied with PAM solution at rate of 1.0 or 2.5 g kg–1 under three shaking schemes: (a) 3 rotations; (b) 2 min; and (c) 30 min. The bars represent the standard error and the lowercase letters represent significant differences in each SAR-solution-treated soils.
Sustainability 14 13147 g006
Sustainability 14 13147 g007 550
Figure 7. The concept of spraying polyacrylamide to stabilise dispersive soil during tillage.
Figure 7. The concept of spraying polyacrylamide to stabilise dispersive soil during tillage.
Sustainability 14 13147 g007
Table
Table 1. Basic chemical and physical properties of soils used in this study.
Table 1. Basic chemical and physical properties of soils used in this study.
Properties Dermosol 1Vertosol 1Kandosol 1
Depthcm0–300–300–30
pH (1:5) 8.87.57.1
EC 2 (1:5)dS m–10.300.170.05
SAR 3(mmolc L–1)–0.54.31.60.1
CROSS 4(mmolc L–1)–0.54.61.80.5
ESP 5%11.72.30.6
EDP 6%12.53.72.3
CEC 7 18.642.35.0
Organic carbon%1.61.01.6
Soil texture
Clay%346013
Silt%16115
Sand%502982
Dry aggregate size
>10 mm%16.49.19.6
4–10 mm%14.321.811.5
2–4 mm%12.326.15.9
1–2 mm%1120.34.8
0.6–1 mm%1311.85.1
250–600 µm%16.47.630.3
150–250 µm%6.91.819.1
75–150 µm%5.31.07.1
<75 µm%4.40.46.6
dMWD 8mm3.73.82.4
Australian taxonomic class Red DermosolBlack VertosolRed Kandosol
Location in Australia North Star, NSWDalby, QLDSt. George, QLD
1 Australian soil classification; 2 electrical conductivity; 3 sodium adsorption ratio; 4 cation ratio of soil structural stability; 5 exchangeable sodium percentage; 6 exchangeable dispersion percentage; 7 cation exchange capacity; 8 dry mean weight diameter.
Table
Table 2. Basic solution properties of polyacrylamide (PAM) at increasing concentrations.
Table 2. Basic solution properties of polyacrylamide (PAM) at increasing concentrations.
ConcentrationPAM-1PAM-2PAM-3
pHECpHECpHEC
g L−1 dS m−1 dS m−1 dS m−1
0.056.60.036.20.026.90.01
0.206.70.096.80.057.10.05
0.406.90.187.00.077.60.09
0.757.40.267.80.137.60.16
1.507.30.617.90.247.60.25
3.007.21.327.70.387.60.51
6.007.22.577.70.767.60.87
Table
Table 3. The soil properties after SAR solution treatment.
Table 3. The soil properties after SAR solution treatment.
DermosolVertosolKandosol
SAR of Treatment SolutionFinal pHFinal ECESPFinal pHFinal ECESPFinal pHFinal ECESP
dS m–1% dS m–1% dS m–1%
07.30.70.26.61.30.96.60.51.9
157.90.812.56.71.28.96.60.512.4
308.60.619.96.91.012.86.80.522.7
608.70.625.66.91.114.86.90.429.2
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhu, Y.; Ali, A.; Bennett, J.M.; Guppy, C.; McKenzie, D. Targeting Subsoil Constraints in Southern Queensland: Concept Proof of Spraying Polyacrylamide for Subsoil Stabilisation during Tillage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13147. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013147

AMA Style

Zhu Y, Ali A, Bennett JM, Guppy C, McKenzie D. Targeting Subsoil Constraints in Southern Queensland: Concept Proof of Spraying Polyacrylamide for Subsoil Stabilisation during Tillage. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13147. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013147

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhu, Yingcan, Aram Ali, John McLean Bennett, Chris Guppy, and David McKenzie. 2022. "Targeting Subsoil Constraints in Southern Queensland: Concept Proof of Spraying Polyacrylamide for Subsoil Stabilisation during Tillage" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13147. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013147

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop