Laserfiche WebLink
40 A. 1). Day, T. C. Tucker and J. L. Thames <br />evaporation and by reducing air movement and <br />solar energy at the soil -air interface (Adams et <br />al., 1976). Lal (1974) noticed a temperature <br />difference of 8 °C between mulched and un- <br />mulched tropical soils. Mulching reduced soil - <br />temperature down to the 20 -cm depth. Allmaras <br />and Nelson (1971) reported that straw mulch <br />strips reduced soil - temperature and metric suc- <br />tion to the 45 cm soil depth, while black plastic <br />mulch had no effect on soil- temperature below <br />the 15 cm depth. Bansal et al. (1971) observed <br />that soil- moisture and soil - temperature were <br />higher under polyethylene mulch than they were <br />under straw mulch. The addition of large quan- <br />tities of plant residues to soil materials reduced <br />soil- temperature and soil - moisture Toss from <br />evaporation (Greb et al., 1970). Osbore and Gil- <br />bert (1978) stabilized a highway slope with vege- <br />tation by mulching the surface with shredded <br />hardwood bark to reduce erosion and runoff. <br />Lattanzi et al. (1974) stated that runoff from rain- <br />fall can be reduced by the addition of sufficient <br />soil mulch to protect the soil from surface sealing <br />by raindrop impact. Michael and Blackard (1978) <br />found that the application of high rates of soil <br />mulch significantly reduced runoff volume and <br />maintained a high moisture infiltration rate. <br />The purpose of this study was to compare <br />Russian thistle (Salsola Tali L.) mulch with bar- <br />ley (Hordeunr vulgare L.) straw mulch in reduc- <br />ing soil - moisture loss from coal mine soil mate- <br />rials. <br />MATERIALS AND METHODS <br />Greenhouse experiments were conducted in <br />1978 in Tucson, Arizona to compare Russian <br />thistle mulch with barley straw mulch in reducing <br />soil- moisture loss from coal mine soil materials <br />obtained from the Black Mesa Coal Mine, near <br />Kayenta, Arizona. <br />Three soil materials were studied in these ex- <br />periments: (a) coal mine soil (a miscellaneous <br />land type), (b) unmined soil (Fniitland soil series) <br />that belongs to the soil family of coarse -loamy <br />mixed (calcareous). mesic Typic 'I'oriorthents, <br />and (c) Red Mesa loam soil —a member of the <br />Haplargid great group. Each soil material was <br />observed without mulch, mulched with Russian <br />thistle, and mulched with barley straw to make a <br />total of nine soil treatments. The mulched soil <br />materials were prepared by mixing the soil and <br />the mulches (coarsely ground) in the ratio of two <br />parts of soil material to one part of mulch, on <br />volume basis. The nine soil materials were ar- <br />ranged in a Randomized Complete Block design <br />with four replications. The experimental units <br />were 7 cm diameter waxed paper cups. Prior to <br />the studies, the soil materials were allowed to <br />stand in the greenhouse for seven days to attain a <br />uniform moisture content in equilibrium with the <br />greenhouse environment, which was maintained <br />with thermostatically - controlled heaters and <br />evaporative coolers. A hygrothermograph was <br />used to monitor the greenhouse temperature and <br />relative humidity. After the seven -day period, 50 <br />ml of tap water was added to each cup and the <br />total weight was recorded to the nearest 0.1 g. <br />Weights were recorded daily for six days to de- <br />termine the percent moisture loss from each soil <br />material. <br />The studies involved two experiments re- <br />peated three tines in each of two environments. <br />Environment 1 was a temperature of 27 °C and <br />54% relative humidity and Environment II was a <br />temperature of 21 °C and 75% relative humidity. <br />Moisture loss was calculated as a percentage <br />of the initial 50 ml of water added to the soil <br />materials. <br />All data were analyzed using the standard <br />analysis of variance and means were compared <br />using the Student - Newman- Keuls' Test as de- <br />scribed by Little and Hills (1972). <br />RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <br />The average soil - moisture loss for nine soil <br />materials in two greenhouse environments is <br />shown in Table 1. Barley straw and Russian this- <br />tle mulches significantly reduced soil- moisture <br />loss from Red Mesa loam soil, unmined soil, and <br />coal mine soil material. <br />In Environment I (27 °C and 547 relative <br />humidity) the three soil materials without mulch <br />lost about 80/0 of their original soil - moisture con- <br />tent and about 75% of their original moisture con- <br />tent when they were mulched with barley straw <br />or Russian thistle. <br />Soil- moisture loss from all the soil materials <br />was lower in Environment 11 (21 °C and 75i4 rela- <br />tive humidity) than it was in Environment 1: how- <br />ever, the two environments followed the same <br />pattern of soil - moisture Toss. In Environment 11, <br />soil- moisture loss from Red Mesa loam soil with- <br />out mulch was significantly lower than it was <br />from unmined soil and coal mine soil material <br />without mulch. The addition of barley straw and <br />Russian thistle mulches to each of the three soil <br />materials in Environment II reduced their soil <br />moisture loss by the same amount. <br />The data reported in this paper indicated that <br />the decrease in soil - moisture loss from coal mine <br />1 <br />r <br />:r <br />c <br />u <br />t1 <br />t: <br />ti <br />