*3.2. Soil Moisture Content*

Figure 5 shows the different patterns of soil moisture distribution in their response to FI, PRD70, and PRD50, combined with WM, BM, and NM during the WS and SS. The values presented for volumetric soil moisture content (*θv*) are an average of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 m soil depths. Before irrigation treatments (20 DAS), the *θ<sup>v</sup>* for all treatments was almost the same for each growing season. Irrigation was scheduled based on ET, and this caused a variation in *θ<sup>v</sup>* between the two seasons. In the WS, the *θ<sup>v</sup>* for FI was below the FC compared with the SS when the *θ<sup>v</sup>* of FI was almost near the FC. The average *θ<sup>v</sup>* in the SS was higher by 16%, 22%, and 32% for BM, WM, and NM, respectively, than the corresponding values in WS. This was primarily due to the applied water in the SS, which was higher than in the WS (Figure 4). For the mulch treatments, WM and BM showed higher *θ<sup>v</sup>* than NM. The increased moisture retention capacity of the mulched treatments in the two growing seasons could be attributed to less evaporation from the soil, as shown in Figure 5. Besides, vapor accumulation from irrigated water trapped within the mulches cause the formation of fog, which precipitates back into the soil. These findings are in agreement with Yaghi et al. [32] and Rashid et al. [47], who found that mulched treatments showed higher soil moisture content compared to non-mulched treatments. The *θ<sup>v</sup>* values of the PRD treatments showed alternately an increase in the wet side (right) of the root zone, while the dry side (left) showed a reduction in soil moisture content, as shown in Figure 5. The wet side of the root zone delivers water to the plant, while the dry side improves root ventilation. In PRD70, *θ<sup>v</sup>* was between the FC and WP. However, in PRD50, *θ<sup>v</sup>* was below the WP, and this had a negative impact on plant growth. The patterns of soil water dynamics in PRD-treated plants in this study were similar to those described by Barideh et al. [16] and Rashid et al. [47], who found that the soil water content in PRD treatments increased and decreased interchangeably.
