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

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Amezketa, E. Articles by Gazol, R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Amezketa, E. Articles by Gazol, R. Agricola Articles by Amezketa, E. Articles by Gazol, R. Related Collections Laboratory Column Studies Soil Salinity Remediation Infiltration Soil Conservation

Efficiency of Sulfuric Acid, Mined Gypsum, and Two Gypsum By-Products in Soil Crusting Prevention and Sodic Soil Reclamation

^a Agricultural Resources Evaluation Center, Dep. of Agriculture, Gobierno de Navarra, Ctra Sadar s/n, Edificio "El Sario", 3^a planta, 31006 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
^b Dep. of Soils and Irrigation, Research and Agronomic Technology Center, Diputación General de Aragón, Apdo. 727, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Efficiency of chemical amendments in soil crusting prevention: mean infiltration rate (IR) and 1 standard error (SE) bar values along the leaching process with canal water (EC = 0.38 dS m–1) of soils SA 20/1 (nonsodic) and SA 31/1 (sodic) nonamended (control) and surface-amended at equivalent rates of 5 Mg pure-gypsum ha–1 of sulfuric acid, mined-gypsum, coal-gypsum, and lacto-gypsum.

View larger version (43K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Efficiency of chemical amendments in soil crusting prevention: Electrical conductivity (EC), Na, and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) values in the column leachates of the SA 31/1 sodic soil surface-amended with sulfuric acid, coal-gypsum, lacto-gypsum, and mined-gypsum at equivalent rates of 5 Mg pure-gypsum ha–1.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Efficiency of three rates of mined-gypsum in crusting prevention in a nonsodic soil: mean infiltration rate (IR) and 1 SE bar values along the leaching process with canal water (EC = 0.38 dS m–1) of the SA 20/1 nonsodic soil nonamended (control) and surface-amended at equivalent rates of 5, 3, and 1 Mg pure-gypsum ha–1.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Efficiency of chemical amendments in sodic soil reclamation: mean infiltration rate (IR) and 1 SE bar values along the leaching process with canal water (EC = 0.38 dS m–1) of the SA 31/1 sodic soil nonamended, amended with surface-applied sulfuric acid, and with soil-incorporated mined-gypsum, coal-gypsum, and lacto-gypsum at rates of 1 pure-gypsum requirement (PGR).

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Efficiency of chemical amendments in sodic soil reclamation: Electrical conductivity (EC), Na, and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) values in the column leachates of the SA 31/1 sodic soil amended with surface-applied sulfuric acid and with soil-incorporated mined-gypsum, coal-gypsum, and lacto-gypsum at rates of 1 pure-gypsum requirement (PGR).