International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Soil and Water Conservation Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iswcr

Original Research Article

The effect of hydrogel particle size on water retention properties and

availability under water stress
Ahmad M. Abdallah
Department of Natural Resources and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, 59 Damanhour, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of superabsorbent polymers or hydrogels could increase the water holding capacity (WHC) of
Received 21 June 2018 sandy soil and reduce water loss by deep percolation. However, hydrogels' retained water availability to
Received in revised form plants might be overestimated without taking into consideration the hydrogel particles size. Therefore,
2 May 2019
the ultimate objective of this study was to address the impacts of hydrogel particles size on hydrogel's
Accepted 13 May 2019
Available online 16 May 2019
retained water availability (plant available water, PAW), daily water consumption (DWC) and survival of
Guava seedlings subjected to drought. Moreover, some soil physical properties, i.e., WHC, water retention
properties, and hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) were investigated. Hydrogel (WaterSorb, “WS”) application,
Keywords:
Water holding capacity
particularly the WS of small particles, significantly reduced Ksat, and increased WHC and PAW. Therefore,
Swelling rate seedlings grown in soil amended with WS fine (0.8e1.0 mm), WS medium (1.0e2.0 mm) and WS large (2
Water consumption e4 mm) survived for 27.0 ± 1.3, 24.0 ± 1.1 and 17.0 ± 0.7 days, respectively, compared to 13.0 ± 1.0 days
Available water capacity for the control. The water stored in the WS of large particles was less readily available for plant roots.
Seedlings survival Interestingly, hydrogels, had no effect on the DWC of the seedlings. Utilizing hydrogels as a soil
amendment increases WHC, PAW, growth and survival of Guava seedlings, while the effect was less
pronounced for the large hydrogel particles which had lower specific surface area and swelling rate.
© 2019 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and
Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The scarcity of rain and irrigation water is a critical problem in
arid and semiarid regions, where water is the determining factor
for crop productivity and the cultivated area (Han, Benner, & Flores,
2018). Moreover, sandy soils are characterized by low water hold-
ing capacity (WHC) and excessive drainage of rain and irrigation
water below the root zone, resulting in inefficient water and fer-
tilizers use (Fan et al., 2005; Wei & Durian, 2014). These problems
are exacerbated when cultivating crops with shallow roots and
with high-water requirements (Bhardwaj, Shainberg, Goldstein,
Warrington, & JLevy, 2007; Fan et al., 2005). Therefore, increasing
WHC (the total amount of water that a soil can hold) and available
Abbreviations: AWC, available water capacity; CLP, cross linked polyacrylamides;
DWC, daily water consumption; DW, distilled water; Ksat, saturated hydraulic
conductivity; PAW, plant available water; RWC, relative water content; SAPs,
superabsorbent polymers; SC, swelling capacity; SR, swelling rate; WHC, water
holding capacity; WS, WaterSorb; WSF, WaterSorb fine; WSM, WaterSorb medium;
WSL, WaterSorb large.
E-mail address: ph7@damanhour.edu.eg.
water capacity (AWC, the amount of water that a plant can uptake)
of light soil is vital to ensure efficient water use and sustainability.
It is widely accepted that WHC and AWC of the soil are positively
correlated to the soil organic matter content. However, Minasny
and McBratney (2018) reported that increasing WHC and AWC by
organic matter addition might be overestimated or uncertain.
Minasny and McBratney (2018) conducted a meta-analysis using 60
published datasets and analyzed about 50000 measurements to
study the impact of organic matter addition to soil on AWC. They
found that organic matter had a very slight effect on AWC. Inter-
estingly, the significant increase in AWC might be only obtained
when large rates of organic matter were applied, which might not
be visible under commercial production conditions (Ankenbauer &
Loheide, 2017; Minasny & McBratney, 2018). Therefore, the devel-
opment of non-traditional practices to improve WHC and AWC of
light soils is gaining more attention (Belaqziz et al., 2013;
Guilherme et al., 2015). It is well established that superabsorbent
polymers (SAPs) or hydrogels such as cross-linked polyacrylamides
(CLP) increase the WHC of soil (Li, He, Hughes, Liu, & Zheng, 2014;
Xu et al., 2015; Yang, Yang, Chen, Guo, & Li, 2014). The CLP are
polymers with high molecular weight and high negative charge

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2019.05.001
2095-6339/© 2019 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
276 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285

that absorb a significant amount of water, up to 400e2000 g water Table 1

g
1 CLP, (Guilherme et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014). Main physical and chemical properties of a representative soil samples in the
experimental site (0e30 cm depth).
When the hydrogel-amended soil dries, the absorbed water by
hydrogel particles (about 90e95% of the retained water) could Soil property The value
gradually be released to the plants (Chen, Zhang, Luo, & Fang, 2004; Particle size distribution
Han et al., 2013; Hüttermann, Zommorodi, & Reise, 1999). In this Sand (%) 90.6
way, hydrogels application might increase not only WHC but also Silt (%) 5.65
Clay (%) 4.23
AWC of sandy soils and reduce water loss by deep percolation and
Water retention points
fertilizer leaching (Banedjschafie & Durner, 2015; Montesano, Saturation (%) 38.8
Parente, Santamaria, Sannino, & Serio, 2015; Yu et al., 2017). Field capacity (%) 15.33
Therefore, hydrogels application might enable longer intervals PWP (%) 7.30
Available water (mm m
1) 83.33
between irrigations, provides a buffer against water stress and
Bulk Density (Mg m
3) 1.63
reduce the risk of temporary drought stress (Beniwal, Langenfeld- Total porosity (%) 38.8
Heyser, & Polle, 2010; Han et al., 2013). Additionally, hydrogles Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (mm h
1) 106.33
application found to enhance plant growth at the early stages of Ece (dS m
1) 2.2
production (El-Asmar, Jaafar, Bashour, Farran, & Saoud, 2017; Yang Ph 8.1
CEC (c mol kg
1) 4.21
et al., 2014; Zhang, Liu, Li, & Wang, 2006), reduce the failure of
OM (%) 0.07
certain crops at establishment or reduce yield losses of some crops CaCO3 (%) 4.21
at specific growth stages (Orikiriza et al., 2013; Wu & Liu, 2008) and
PWP, OM and CEC presents permanent wilting point, organic matter and cation
aides seed germination, emergence and increases the seedling exchange capacity, respectively. Electrical conductivity (Ece) measured in soil paste
survival (Beniwal et al., 2010; Orikiriza et al., 2013; Wei & Durian, extract. Soil reaction (PH) measured in 1:2.5 soil suspension. Organic matter
2014; Yang et al., 2014). The effect of SAPs was extended to other (calculated by multiplying the organic carbon content by a conversion factor of
soil physical properties. It has been reported that hydrogels appli- 1.724).

cation, reduces soil bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity,

and penetration resistance, while increases soil aggregation and
porosity (Agaba et al., 2010; Andry et al., 2009; Li et al., 2014; Xu
et al., 2015).
Besides the low cost, availability, and safety, the main required
properties of hydrogels for agricultural purposes are the high
swelling rate (SR), swelling capacity (SC) and re-swellability. These
properties are mainly dependent on: (I) polymer's network struc-
ture, (ii) hydrogel concentration, (iii), soil salinity and water quality
(Banedjschafie & Durner, 2015; Shahid, Qidwai, Anwar, Ullah, &
Rashid, 2012; Yu et al., 2017), (iv) application method (El-Asmar
et al., 2017; Li et al., 2014; Wei & Durian, 2014), (v) crop species
(Bai, Song, & Zhang, 2013; Langaroodi, Ashouri, Dorodian, &
Azarpour, 2013) and (vi) soil texture (Agaba et al., 2010; Bai et al.,
2013; Montesano et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2017).
It is well known that Hydrogels or SAPs, e.g., CLP efficiently in-
crease WHC of the soil, particularly the light soils. However,
hydrogels' retained water availability to plants' root system might
be overestimated without taking into consideration the Hydrogel
particles size. Yet, little information is known about the impact of
hydrogel particles size on soil WHC, PAW and the ratio between the
two (PAW/WHC). This ratio indicates the percentage of available
water to plants in relation to the retained water in the hydrogel.
Therefore, the main objective of this study was to address the im-
pacts of hydrogel particle size on hydrogel's retained water avail-
ability to plant, daily water consumption (DWC) and survival of
Guava seedlings under drought conditions. A further objective was
to investigate the effect of hydrogel particles size on some soil
physical properties i.e., WHC, AWC and saturated hydraulic
conductivity.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Soils and hydrogels used in the experiments
Experiments were conducted using samples of sandy soil (90.6,
5.65 and 4.23% of sand, silt and clay, respectively). The soil was
characterized by low organic matter and low water holding ca-
pacity. The main physical and chemical properties of the used soil
are presented in Table (1). The soil was air-dried, ground, and
passed through a 2-mm sieve in the case of laboratory experiments,
while in the pots experiments, the pots were packed using un-
sieved soil. WaterSorb (WS), a potassium-based cross-linked
polyacrylamide, (WaterSorb-227 S Church Ave, Fayetteville, AR.
USA) with three different particle size ranges (0.8e1.0, 1.0e2.0 and
2.0e4.0 mm) each was mixed with the air-dried sandy soil at 0.3%
(w/w) and control (soil without WS). Hereafter, the sizes 0.8e1.0,
1.0e2.0 and 2.0e4.0 mm will be referred to WSF, WSM and WSL,
respectively. The specific surface area (SSA) of the WS particles,
assuming a spherical shape, was calculated using the following
equation (Gao, Li, Song, & Wang, 2000):
 
6
SSA ¼ *10
6 (1)
dr
Where; SSA is the specific surface area of WS particles (m2 g
1), d is
the diameter of the WS particle (m) and r is the density of the WS
particles (0.7 Mg m
3).
2.2. Measurements of the swelling capacity of the hydrogels and
their response to salinity
The swelling capacity (SC, the water absorption capacity) of the
WS was determined with the teabag method as described by
(Buchholz, 1998). For measuring SC, one g of each WS particle size
was packed in a teabag and submerged into distilled water (DW)
until the equilibrium swelling was reached (z80 min). The mass of
the swollen absorbent was then measured after the removal of the
extra water using a filter paper. Similarly, five levels of saline water
(0.5, 1, 2, 3 and 4 dS m
1) were used for measuring SC as well. The
equilibrium water absorbency of swollen samples was calculated
using the following equation (Spagnol, Rodrigues, & Neto et al.,
2012, Spagnol, Rodrigues, & Pereira et al., 2012).
Ws
Wd
SC ¼ (2)
Wd
Where: SC is the swelling capacity (g water g
1 WS), Ws and Wd
are mass of the swollen and dry samples (g), respectively.
 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285
2.3. Measurements of swelling rate of different sized hydrogel
particles
Swelling rate (SR, the unit of water absorbed for each time unit)
was measured by measuring the amount of water absorbed at
various times using DW (Isik & Kis, 2004). The swelling rate of the
WSF, WSM and WSL was calculated at 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70
and 80 min. The SR (g sec
1) was calculated by dividing the amount
of water absorbed (g) by the submerging time (sec). The initial and
final swelling (swelling equilibrium) was estimated after 5 and
80 min, respectively.
2.4. Measurements of re-swelling capability of different sized
hydrogel particles
One gram of each WS particle size (WSF, WSM and WSL) was
immersed in a DW for 80 min to reach the swelling equilibrium.
The swollen WS were determined and then filtered out with a mesh
screen and dehydrated at 80  C. After complete drying, the recov-
ered WS particles were rewetted and dehydrated twice consisting
three swelling/dehydration cycles (Shahid et al., 2012). Similarly,
the WS re-swelling capacity was measured at varied water salin-
ities (2.0 and 4 dS m
1).
2.5. Measurement of the swelling capacity in the water and soil
mixture
To compare the SC of WS, of each particle size, in the free water
and in the soil mixture; soil samples (100 g), WS samples (1 g) of
each particle size, and WS-soil mixtures (1 g WS 100
1 g soil) were
transported into permeable nylon bags (Isik & Kis, 2004). Three
bags for each treatment were immersed in a container filled with
three L of tap water (0.5 dS m
1) for 15 min (Yu et al., 2011). The SC
of the WS of each particle size was measured in the free water,
moreover, the SC in the soil mixture was measured as follow.
D
b
SC ¼
C
Where; D is the mass of the wet WS-soil mixture (g), b is the mass
of dry soil (g) with the water absorbed by it, and C is the dry weight
of WS in the WS-soil mixture (g).
2.6. Measurement of saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity was measured according to
(Moutier, Shainberg, & Levy, 2000). A plastic cylinder (20 cm height
with a diameter of 7 cm) with a fine metal screen at the bottom
were used to determine the hydraulic conductivity of soil amended
with 0.3% WS of the three sized particles in addition to the control,
using three replicates for each treatment. The amended soil and
control soil was packed in the cylinder at a bulk density of
1.6 Mg m
3 and covered with a filter paper to reduce soil surface
disturbance. Soil cylinders were saturated by capillary rise using
tap water (0.5 dS m
1). After the saturation process from the bot-
tom, the flow direction was reversed, and a constant pressure head
of 4 cm was applied in the top of soil cylinder. The leachate was
collected, and hydraulic conductivity was calculated.
2.7. Guava seedlings survival experiment
A one-year-old Guava seedlings (71 ± 1.12 cm-high) (Psidium
guajava L.) were transplanted to 30 L pots with either control soil or
amended soil with WSF, WSM or WSL at 0.3% (w/w) and replicated
five times. The seedlings were then placed in a completely
277
randomized design in the greenhouse under controlled conditions
(ambient temperature of 28.0 ± 2.0  C and a relative humidity of
70.0 ± 5.0%). The pots were weekly rotated within the greenhouse
to ensure uniform distribution of light and air to the seedlings. For
the first eight weeks, the seedlings were irrigated three times a
week with 2 L of tap water (0.5 dS m
1) per pot, to ensure that the
seedlings were successfully established (Hüttermann et al., 1999).
After that, irrigation was terminated. Immediately, after ceasing
irrigation, initial water content was calculated by weighting the
pots (the changes in plant weights were ignored). The pot weights
were recorded daily to obtain the DWC (Agaba et al., 2010; Wang &
Boogher, 1987). This process was continued until seedlings became
wilt. The signs of wilting were the brown leaves and brittle
branches (Agaba et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2014). The total time to
reach wilting stage was considered as the survival time. The plant
available water (PAW) was determined by obtaining the difference
between initial soil water content after suspending irrigation and
the final soil water content at the individual plant death (Agaba
et al., 2010; Hüttermann et al., 1999). Shoot heights were
measured immediately after irrigation terminating and at the in-
dividual plant death. The non-survived seedlings were harvested
and the whole seedling was dried at 70  C until a constant weight
was reached and a total dry weight was determined. The relative
water content (RWC) of leaves was measured before ceasing irri-
gation and after ten days of terminating irrigation. Relative water
content of leaves was measured as described by (Yamasaki &
Dillenburg, 1999). Fully expanded leaves were detached, and leaf
fresh weight (LFW) was measured. The sampled leaves were floated

on DW at 4 C in a dark chamber for 24 h, and leaf turgid weight
(LTW) was measured. Leaf dry weight (LDW) was determined after
drying at 70  C till they reached a constant weight. RWC was
calculated using the following equation:
ðLFWe LDWÞ
RWCð%Þ ¼ *100 (4)
ðTW eLDWÞ
(3)
2.8. Measurement of soil-moisture characteristics curves
Immediately before harvesting the seedlings, undisturbed soil
cores (65 mm diameter and 30 mm height) were sampled at 10 cm
depth (three replicates for each treatment) for measuring soil
moisture characteristics curves. Samples were saturated overnight
with tap water (0.5 dS m
1). The soil moisture characteristic curve
was measured for the soil using pressure plate extractors (Dane &
Hopmans, 2002), in a matric potential of 0, 33, 100, 300, and
1500 kPa. The desired tension was applied until outflow ceased and
the soil water was considered to be in equilibrium with the applied
pressure. Water content at each pressure was calculated from the
volume of outflow between pressure steps, the final water content,
and the weight of oven-dried soil. Furthermore, the AWC (mm/m)
was calculated by the subtraction of water content at Field capacity
(FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP).
2.9. Statistical analysis
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the obtained data was per-
formed using a completely randomized design in Glmmix proced-
ure in SAS 9.4 (SAS, Inc., Cary, NC. USA). The statistical differences
among treatments' means across traits were conducted using
Tukey's test. Mean differences were considered significant at
p ¼ 0.05.
278 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285

3. Results
3.1. Swelling rate of tested hydrogels
The results of swelling rate (Fig. (1a)) showed a non-linear
negative relationship between the average particle size and
swelling rate for all treatment. The absorption behavior followed
three stages; the first stage (0e5 min) showed a rapid increase in
the amount of absorbed water with time. Meanwhile, the second
stage (5e40 min) showed moderately absorption. The last stage
(40e80 min) showed almost steady-state absorption in which, no
increase in water absorbancy over time was observed. Since the
absorbance of water is a function of time, two swelling conditions
were described at 5 min (initial swelling) and 80 min (final
swelling). The two swelling conditions were shown in Figure (1b)
as a function of WS particle sizes. As regard to the initial swelling,
the amount of water absorbed was significantly (P  0.05) affected
by the hydrogel particles size. The amount of water absorbed after
5 min was 195.0 ± 0.47, 172.0 ± 0.81 and 125.0 ± 1.24 g g
1 (g water
g
1 WS) for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively, corresponding to a
swelling rate of 0.65 ± 0.002, 0.57 ± 0.003 and 0.42 ± 0.005 g s
1.
The amount of water absorbed by the WS of different particle size at
final equilibrium swelling time (after 80 min) was not significantly
affected by hydrogel particles size; in which the amount of water
absorbed was 244.3 ± 3.05, 242.0 ± 2.64 and 238.6 ± 1.52 g g
1 for
WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively. The corresponding swelling rate
values were 0.05 ± 0.001, 0.050 ± 0.0004 and 0.050 ± 0.0002 g s
1
for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively.
abruptly with salinity till 0.5 dS m
1. When water salinity increased
only to 0.5 dS m
1, SC was markedly reduced by 37.15, 43.17 and
45.5% for WSF, WSM and WSL. The SC decreased gradually and
significantly with further increase in water salinity behind
0.5 dS m
1. However, even under severe water salinity (4 dS m
1),
the testes WS of different particle size were still functional; as a
significant amount of water was absorbed (81.33 ± 0.57,
69.33 ± 0.57 and 66.6 ± 1.15 g water g
1 WS for WSF, WSM and
WSL). The percentages of absorbed water at 4 dS/m to that in the
DW were 33.4, 28.6 and 33.3% for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively.
The re-swelling capacity of the WSF, WSM and WSL was tested
for three swelling/dehydration cycles in varied water salinities (0.0,
2.0 and 4.0 dS m
1). The results of re-swelling capacity are shown
in Figure (3). The three WS particles size found to have the ability to
re-swell under different water salinity. However, the SC was
significantly reduced in the second and the third swelling/dehy-
dration cycles at any given water salinity. For example, when DW
was used, in the first swelling/dehydration cycle, maximum SC was
244.3 ± 3.05, 242.0 ± 2.64 and 238.6 ± 1.52 g g
1 for WSF, WSM and

3.2. The effect of salinity on swelling and re-swelling capacity of

tested hydrogels

The results of SC of varying WS particle size under several water

salinity were presented in Fig. 2. At all water salinity levels, the SC
of the WS decreased in the following order: WSF > WSM > WSL.
The different grained-WS were profoundly affected by water
salinity; where a non-linear negative relationship was observed
between the amount of water absorbed (g water g
1 WS) and water
salinity (dS m
1). Maximum SC was observed in the DW (0.0 dS/m).
Fig. 2. Swelling capacity (water absorption capacity, g water g
1 WaterSorb) for
Using DW, the WSF, WSM and WSL absorbed 244.3 ± 3.05, various sized WaterSorb particles (WSF, WSM and WSL) under several water salinity.
242.0 ± 2.64 and 238.6 ± 1.52 g water g
1 WS, respectively. The SC WSF, WSM and WSL denote WaterSorb fine (0.8e1.0 mm), WaterSorb medium
decreases were in distinct two stages, in which SC decreased (1.0e2.0 mm) and WaterSorb large (2.0e4.0 mm), respectively.

Fig. 1. Swelling capacity (Water absorption capacity, g water g
1 WaterSorb) as a function of time and the average particle size of the WaterSorb (WSF, WSM and WSL) (Panel a).
Initial and Final swelling of various sized WaterSorb particles (Panel b). The initial swelling rate analysis showed an inverse linear relationship between average particle size and
initial swelling rate. No significant correlation between particle size and final equilibrium swelling ratio was observed. WSF, WSM and WSL denote WaterSorb fine (0.8e1.0 mm),
WaterSorb medium (1.0e2.0 mm) and WaterSorb large (2.0e4.0 mm), respectively.
 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285 279

Fig. 3. Swelling capacity (Water absorption capacity, g water g
1 WaterSorb) of the different WaterSorb particle size (WSF, WSM and WSL) during first, second and third swelling/
dehydration cycles under several water salinity (0.0, 2.0 dS m
1 and 4.0 dS m
1). WSF, WSM and WSL denote WaterSorb fine (0.8e1.0 mm), WaterSorb medium (1.0e2.0 mm) and
WaterSorb large (2.0e4.0 mm), respectively. Data are means ± standard deviation.

WSL, respectively. Meanwhile, the SC was reduced in the second

swelling/dehydration cycle to be 227.6 ± 2.52, 216 ± 5.29 and
207 ± 1.7 g water g
1 WS for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively.
Under salinity conditions, significantly reduction in WS re-
swellability was observed, compared to the DW treatment, with
no significant differences between the 2 dS m
1 and 4 dS m
1
treatments. Whereas, when DW was used, SC in the third swelling/
dehydration cycle was reduced by 10.1, 13.36 and 10.04% for WSF,
WSM and WSL, respectively. Meanwhile, when a saline water of
2 dS m
1 was used, the corresponding reduction values were 15.46,
22.64 and 22.02% for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively. Similarly,
the corresponding reduction in SC in the third swelling/dehydra-
tion cycle, in the 4 dS m
1 treatments were 13.11, 21.63 and 18.8 for
WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively.

3.3. Hydrogels swelling in the free water system and soil mixture

The amount of water absorbed by the different WS particle size
in the free water system and the WS-soil mixtures were presented
in Figure. (4). One g of WSF, WSM and WSL were tested for SC in a
free water system and compared with their SC in soil mixture (one
g of WS 100
1 g sandy soil). In both systems, the SC was inversely
related to the average particle size and significantly decreased in
the following order: WSF > WSM > WSL. At any particle size, the
WS-soil mixtures retained significantly less water (112.3 ± 2.5,
96.3 ± 1.15 and 84.3 ± 1.52 g g
1 for WSF, WSM and WSL, respec-
tively) compared to the free water system (153.3 ± 1.53,
134.6 ± 1.53 and 125.6 ± 4.0 g g
1 for WSF, WSM and WSL,
respectively).
3.4. Soil-moisture characteristics curves and available water
capacity
Soil-moisture characteristics curves that obtained for WS-soil
mixtures presented in (Fig. 5). The results indicate that the water
retention of the amended soil depends on WS particle size. Mixing
the WS with soil significantly increased the retained water at all
studied suctions. The WSF possessed the highest retained water
compared with the WSM and WSF. Considering the field capacity
(FC) at soil suction of 33 kPa, the Fc values were 15.3 ± 1.1,
58.0 ± 1.2, 55.4 ± 0.56 and 50.4 ± 1.5% for control, WSF, WSM and
WSL, respectively. Similarly, if permanent wilting point (PWP) is
estimated at 1500 kPa, the corresponding PWP values were
Fig. 4. The quantity of water retained by various sized WaterSorb particles (WSF, WSM
and WSL) in the free water system and in the soil mixture. Different letters on the top
of bars indicate significant differences between treatments with p-value  0.05
(Tukey's test). Significance letters apply only within each parameter. WSF, WSM and
WSL denote WaterSorb fine (0.8e1.0 mm), WaterSorb medium (1.0e2.0 mm) and
WaterSorb large (2.0e4.0 mm), respectively. Data are means ± standard deviation.
7.16 ± 0.29, 16.0 ± 1.00, 17.37 ± 0.57 and 20.33 ± 0.58%. In spite of
the significant increase in soil water content at PWP, the AWC was
increased by 5.04, 4.56 and 3.61 folds for WSF, WSM and WSL,
respectively, relative to the control (Fig. 7). The significant (P  0.05)
increase in PWP indicates that a part of the water that retained by
the WS particles might not be available to the seedlings when
needed. A portion of 15.5, 18.7 and 26.3% of hydrogels' retained
water for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively, was apparently not
available to seedlings.
3.5. Saturated hydraulic conductivity
Results presented in Figure (6) indicate the values of Ksat for the
WS-soil mixtures and the control. The Ksat values decreased
significantly by mixing 0.3% of the WS, for all particles sizes, in
comparison to control. The Ksat was reduced significantly in the
following order; WSL > WSM > WSF; whereas, the Ksat was
significantly reduced by 68.8, 47.4 and 38.9% for WSF, WSM and
WSL, respectively.
280 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285
Fig. 5. Soil-moisture characteristics curves of the soil amended with different
WaterSorb Particle size (WSF, WSM and WSL). WSF, WSM and WSL denote WaterSorb
fine (0.8e1.0 mm), WaterSorb medium (1.0e2.0 mm) and WaterSorb large
(2.0e4.0 mm), respectively.
Fig. 6. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the WaterSorb-soil mixtures as a
function of polymer particle size (WSF, WSM and WSL). Different letters on the top of
bars indicate significant differences between treatments with p-value  0.05 (Tukey's
test). WSF, WSM and WSL denote WaterSorb fine (0.8e1.0 mm), WaterSorb medium
(1.0e2.0 mm) and WaterSorb large (2.0e4.0 mm), respectively. Data are
means ± standard deviation.
3.6. Guava seedlings survivability experiment
Soil water balances for the studied trials before and after ceasing
irrigation are presented in Table (2). The total soil water storage
differed among the treatments significantly at the beginning and at
plant death. The stored water was significantly dependent on the
WS particles sizes, in which the WSF possessed the greatest amount
of water retained in comparison to the control or the other WS sizes
at the trials begin. At the beginning of the desiccation experiment,
the initial soil water content was 14.4 ± 0.24, 30.7 ± 0.22,
28.33 ± 0.17 and 22.7 ± 0.25% for control, WSF, WSM and WSL,
respectively, which was reduced to 2.8 ± 0.2%, 7.07 ± 0.14,
7.57 ± 0.14 and 9.33 ± 0.24% for control, WSF, WSM and WSL,
respectively, at which the seedlings died. Thereby, the PAW differed
significantly among the studied treatments (Table 2). The PAW for
the WS treatments was significantly increased by a factor of 2.11,
1.86 and 1.21 for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively, compared to the
control treatment. PAW was increased from 3.5 ± 0.07 kg/pot in
Fig. 7. Effects of WaterSorb particle size (WSF, WSM and WSL) on water content at
field capacity (FA, %), permanent wilting point (PWP, %) and available water capacity
(AWC, mm/m). Different letters on the top of the bars indicate significant differences
between treatments with p-value  0.05 (Tukey's test). Significance letters apply only
within each parameter. WSF, WSM and WSL denote WaterSorb fine (0.8e1.0 mm),
WaterSorb medium (1.0e2.0 mm) and WaterSorb large (2.0e4.0 mm), respectively.
Data are means ± standard deviation.
case of the control to 7.09 ± 0.1, 6.23 ± 0.05 and 4.02 ± 0.05 kg/pot
for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively, which correspond to
38.2 ± 0.79, 78.3 ± 1.1, 68.6 ± 0.56 and 44.3 ± 0.56 mm for control,
WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively. The ratio between PAW and
initial water content (total water storage in the soil after stopping
irrigation), was significantly lower in the WS-amended soil,
particularly in the WSL (Table 2). Therefore, a significant portion of
water retained in the WS particles was not readily available to the
seedlings. In this study, 80.8 ± 1.1% of the water present in the
control soil after ceasing irrigation, was consumed. The corre-
sponding values in the WS-amended soils, were, 76.8 ± 0.58,
73.1 ± 1.1 and 59.0 ± 0.71% for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively
(Table 2). A significant increase in the seedlings survival time was
observed for the WS-treated soil, which was dependent on the PAW
and WS particle size. The seedlings treated with WSF, WSL and
WSM survived for 27.0 ± 1.3, 24.0 ± 1.1 and 17.0 ± 0.7 days, respec-
tively, instated of 13.0 ± 1.0 days for the control.
The pattern of DWC of different grained-WS and the control is
shown in Figure (8). In the first seven days, DWC was almost similar
for all treatments. The average DWC, in the first seven days, was
3.49, 3.44, 3.40 and 3.41 mm day
1 for control, WSF, WSM and WSL,
respectively. After seven days of ceasing irrigation, the soils
amended with WS, particularly the WSF, significantly showed a
considerable higher DWC relative to the control. Moreover, when
DWC was calculated by dividing the PAW by the survival days
(Table 2), the WS-treated seedlings tend to have similar values. The
only exception is being for the WSL, in which the DWC was
significantly lower than the other treatments. The DWC values
were 2.93 ± 0.20, 2.88 ± 0.16, 2.91 ± 0.17 and 2.61 ± 0.09 for control,
WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively.
A considerable growth of the seedlings in terms of plant height
and TDM was observed, which was highest in the seedlings
growing in WS-amended soil (Table 3). The plant heights before
ceasing irrigation after eight weeks of enough watering were
approximately similar and did not differ significantly. However, by
the end of the experiment, plant heights differed significantly
among the treatments. Plant height increased to be 103.8 ± 1.1,
97.8 ± 2.0 and 93.8 ± 2.38 cm for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively,
instead of 87.6 ± 1.1 for control. The effect of WS application was
 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285 281

Table 2
Water budget, plant available water, daily water consumption and number of survival days of the water-stressed Guava seedlings after ceasing irrigation.

Treatments Total soil water content after Total soil water content at Plant available water (PAW) PAW/WHC Number of Daily water
ceasing irrigation (WHC) seedlings death (% of the initial survival days consumption
water content) (mm/day)
(Kg) (%) (Kg) (%) (kg) (mm)

Control 4.3 ± 0.07d 14.3 ± 0.24 d 0.8 ± 0.04 d 2.8 ± 0.12 c 3.5 ± 0.1 d 38.2 ± 1.13 d 80.8 ± 1.01 a 13.0 ± 1.0 d 2.93 ± 0.20 a
WSL 6.8 ± 0.08 c 22.8 ± 1.54 c 2.8 ± 0.07 a 9.3 ± 0.24 a 4.0 ± 0.05 c 44.4 ± 0.56 c 59.0 ± 0.76 d 17.0 ± 0.7 c 2.61 ± 0.09 b
WSM 8.5 ± 0.05 b 28.3 ± 1.22 b 2.3 ± 0.04 b 7.6 ± 0.17 b 6.2 ± 0.05 b 68.5 ± 0.56 b 73.1 ± 1.10 c 23.6 ± 1.1 b 2.91 ± 0.17 a
WSF 9.2 ± 0.07 a 30.7 ± 1.12 a 2.1 ± 0.04 c 7.1 ± 0.65 b 7.1 ± 0.10 a 78.0 ± 1.1 a 76.8 ± 0.58 b 27.2 ± 1.3 a 2.88 ± 0.16 a
Tuckey's value 0.089 0.30 0.06 0.21 0.10 1.18 1.02 0.60 0.11

WSF, WSM and WSL denote Watersorb fine (0.8e1.0 mm), Watersorb medium (1.0e2.0 mm) and Watersorb large (2.0e4.0 mm), respectively. Different superscript letters
indicate significant difference at p ¼ 0.05. Means with same alphabets within the same column indicate non-significant differences (p > 0.05, Tuckey's test). Data are
mean ± standard deviation.

Fig. 8. The pattern of daily water consumption (evapotranspiration, mm day
1) after the last watering as affected by WaterSorb of varying particle size (WSF, WSM and WSL). WSF,
WSM and WSL denote WaterSorb fine (0.8e1.0 mm), WaterSorb medium (1.0e2.0 mm) and WaterSorb large (2.0e4.0 mm), respectively.

extended to the TDM; whereas, TDM (g seedling
1) was increased
from 177.8 ± 3.0 g in case of the control to be 196.2 ± 1.7, 194.4 ± 2.8
and 187.2 ± 3.1 g for WSF, WSM and WSL, respectively (Table 3). The
RWC before terminating irrigation behaved similarly to the plant
heights (Table 3). Meanwhile, the RWC after 10 days of irrigation
termination differed among the treatments and its values for the
control was the lowest among the treatments of WS. RWC of leaves
increased from 60.06 ± 0.81% in case of control to 74.8 ± 1.9,
75.4 ± 1.1, and 68.4 ± 1.1% for the WSF, WSM and WSL.
4. Discussion
Classically, hydrogels application increase WHC, PAW of the soil,
thus prolong plant survival under water stress. The current study
introduce information about the impacts of hydrogel particle size
on soil WHC, PAW and the ratio between the two (PAW/WHC). This
ratio indicates the percentage of available water to plants in rela-
tion to the total retained water in the hydrogel particles. In this
study, the swelling behavior (SR, SC, and re-swellability) of
different WS sized particles using DW and varying water salinities
was investigated. After which, we assessed the impact of different
WS sized particles on Ksat, WHC, PAW, DWC, growth and the sur-
vival of Guava seedlings under drought conditions. The water ab-
sorbency of hydrogels, observed in the current study, was also
previously observed (Agaba et al., 2010; Montesano et al., 2015; Yu
et al., 2017). The water absorbency of hydrogels might be attributed
to its high molecular weight, high negative charge and for its hy-
drophilic functional groups, i.e., carboxyl, hydroxyl, and sulfonic
groups (Guilherme et al., 2015; Hüttermann, Orikiriza, & Agaba,
2009). Several studies (Ahmed, 2015; Spagnol et al., 2012a,b)

Table 3
Effect of Watersorb particle size (WSL, WSM and WSF) on the height, relative water content of leaves and total dry matter of Guava seedling subjected to drought stress.

Treatments Plant high (cm) Relative water content of leaves (%) Total dry matter
(g/seedling)
Before ceasing irrigation At Plant death Before ceasing irrigation Ten days after ceasing irrigation

Control 84.6 ± 1.14 a 87.2 ± 1.30 c 79.12 ± 0.75 a 54.6 ± 0.81 c 177.8 ± 3.03 c
WSL 84.4 ± 1.14 a 93.8 ± 1.48 b 80.00 ± 1.22 a 68.4 ± 1.14 b 187.2 ± 3.11 b
WSM 85.0 ± 1.51 a 97.8 ± 2.04 b 78.72 ± 1.13 a 75.4 ± 1.14 a 194.4 ± 2.88 a
WSF 85.4 ± 1.58 a 103.8 ± 2.3 a 79.40 ± 1.14 a 74.8 ± 1.92 a 196.2 ± 1.78 a
Tuckey's value 1.82 2.50 1.44 1.76 3.69

WSF, WSM and WSL denote Watersorb fine (0.8e1.0 mm), Watersorb medium (1.0e2.0 mm) and Watersorb large (2.0e4.0 mm), respectively. Different superscript letters
indicate significant difference at p ¼ 0.05. Means with same alphabets within the same column indicate non-significant differences (p > 0.05, Tuckey's test). Data are
mean ± standard deviation.
282 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285
reported that water absorption capacity depends mainly on the
crosslinking density, particle size and ionic osmotic pressure of the
hydrogels. The maximum SC was recorded for the smaller particles
as compared with the medium and large particles. Similar results
were reported by (Bhardwaj et al., 2007), in which they found a
negative correlation between the particles size of the CLP and the
SC. In terms of swelling rate, the initial SR, was dramatically
dependent on the particle size. Our results support the findings of
(Ahmed, 2015; Bhardwaj et al., 2007; Singh, 1997) in which they
indicated that the fast swelling (higher swelling rate) is mainly
based on the hydrogel particles size, and thus, the time needed to
reach equilibrium swelling (final swelling) was less for the reduced
hydrogel particles size. The higher SR and SC of the fine particles
relative to medium and large particles might be attributed to the
higher SSA of the fine particles. Since, the large particle possesses
small SSA while the small ones possess large SSA (Hillel, 1971). The
high SSA enhanced the capability of the small particle to absorb and
retains water films, as the contact area with water molecules is
much higher compared to that for the large particles (Hillel, 1971).
All tested WS particle sizes were highly sensitive to water
salinity. It is well established that the presence of electrolytes in the
solution decreases the absorption capacity of CLP (Guilherme et al.,
2015; Johnson, 1984). Our results are in agreement with Akhter
et al. (2004) who found that maximum SC was 505, 212 and
140 g g
1 in DW, tap water (EC ¼ 0.759 dS m
1) and saline water
(EC ¼ 5.09 dS m
1). The reduction in the SC of hydrogels might
occur due to the competition between the molecules of solute and
water for adsorption to the WS molecules (Johnson, 1984; Shahid
et al., 2012; Spagnol et al., 2012a,b). Moreover, the SC of hydro-
gels might not only affected by the dissolved salts concentrations,
but also affected by the nature of the dissolved salts (i.e., valence
and ionic radius). The presence of ions, particularly the divalent
cations (Mg2þ and Ca2þ), permanently attached to the carboxylic
acid groups of acrylic acid and thus, block the negative active sites
of the hydrogel and decrease the absorbency of the hydrogel
(Spagnol et al., 2012a, b; Zhou et al., 2012). Zhou et al. (2012) re-
ported that with higher cation valence, concentration and larger
ionic radius, polymers water-absorption remarkably reduced as
Naþ < Kþ < Mg2þ < Ca2þ < Fe2þ < Fe3þ < Al3þ < Cu2þ, while anions
had no effects.
The SC at equilibrium was decreased during the second and
third swelling/dehydration cycle. Similar results were reported by
(Akhter et al., 2004; Han et al., 2013; Shahid et al., 2012; Spagnol
et al., 2012a,b) in which they reported that the SC of tested
hydrogels showed a downward trend with time. The reduction in
SC might be due to the presence of polyvalent cations (Ca2þ and
Mg2þ) form the insoluble salts with acrylic acid (relatively stable
acrylic acid carboxylates) (Shahid et al., 2012).
In this study, the water absorption of the WS in the free system
was higher than in the WS-soil mixture. In the WS-soil mixture, WS
particles were surrounded by soil particles and subjected to a
pressure from all directions (Bhardwaj et al., 2007; Buchholz, 1998).
As a result, the degree of swelling of the absorbents was limited
compared with that in the free water (Singh, 1997). Obtained re-
sults are in agreements with previous studies (Bhardwaj et al.,
2007; Buchholz, 1998; Han et al., 2013). The maximum swelling
in the WS-soil mixture was recorded for the WSF, which might be
attributed to the high SSA of the fine particles that allowed for
higher SR. Moreover, logically the number of polymer granules in
the small grain polymers is higher compared to the medium and
large polymer granules. Therefore, the granules ability to resist the
confining pressure of the soil matrix increased and thus, more
water was absorbed by the fine particles (Bhardwaj et al., 2007).
The reduction in Ksat, observed in this study, due to hydrogels
application was previously reported (Agaba et al., 2010; Andry et al.,
2009). This observation is in agreement with Bhardwaj et al. (2007),
where the Ksat of a sandy soil amended with Stockosorb 500 me-
dium or Stockosorb 500 micro reduced to be 51.1 and 37.3 mm h
1
instead of 71.0 mm h
1 for the control. The remarkable Ksat
reduction of WS-amended soil, might not due to the clay swelling
or dispersion. Since the concentration of Ca2þ electrolytes in tab
water, used in this test, usually enough to prevent clay swelling and
dispersion (Shainberg & Letey, 1984). Additionally, in the current
study, almost there were no aggregates to be disturbed in such
sandy soil with less than 5% clay (Kay & Angers, 1999). The Ksat
reduction might be explained by the increased volume of the WS-
soil mixtures, due to polymer swelling during saturation, that ul-
timately led not only a decrease in pore space between soil particles
(Levy, Goldstein, & Mamedov, 2005) but also resulted in pore
blockage by the swollen polymer grains (Bhardwaj et al., 2007; Han
et al., 2013). The significant differences between the WS treatments
could be attributed to the difference in their swelling properties,
e.g., SR and SC (Bhardwaj et al., 2007). This is in agreement with the
results of Mohammadi, Sefti, Salehi, and Moghadam (2015) in
which they reported that polymers of high swelling rate reduce
water permeability in porous media compared with that of low
swelling rate.
Regarding Guava seedlings survivability test, the increase in
PAW found to be dependent on the SSA of the tested hydrogels,
where a correlation of 0.94 was observed between the SSA and the
amount PAW of the WS-amended soil. Similarly, the increase in
seedlings' survival was proportional to the increase in PAW.
Moreover, the significant increase in soil water content at PWP (at
the individual seedlings death) of the WS-amended soil, indicates
that seedlings' roots do not have full access to water absorbed by
the hydrogels. The water stored in the large particles was less
readily available for plant root abstraction when needed. The
variation in PAW among WS treatments could be explained by the
variation in the SSA of the WS particles. When the soil particles get
dry, the water inside the WS particles gradually moves to the sur-
rounding dry soil particles. The lower SSA of large particles allows
for less contact area with the dry soil particles, therefore, less water
can be released into the soil (Hillel, 1971). The results agreed with
those of (Hüttermann et al., 1999), in which they indicated that a
significant part of the water stored in hydrogel particles was
apparently not available for the plants. Since, the plants (Pinus
halepensis) in the control soils died after the water content was
reduced to 0.6%, while, the trees in the soils amended with 0.4%
Stockosorb K-400 died at a water content of 10.7%. Additionally,
Han et al. (2013) reported that about 89% of the water retained in
SAP might be available to plant roots. However, the results were in
disagreement with those of Li et al. (2014) in which they reported
the water absorbed by the hydrogel particles was not available to
wheat roots. The inconsistency among results might be attributed
to the variability in plant species, environmental conditions and
SAPs type, concentration and particle size.
The increase in water storage owing to WS addition in the pot
experiments was corroborated by the laboratory results (water
retention curve-using pressure plate test), but with higher water
content values in the plate test. A possible reason for the increase in
soil water content at FC in the plate test relative to that in the pots
might be, in the plate test, the WS-soil mixture was saturated
overnight, and thus the WS particles had enough time to reach full
swelling. Meanwhile, the inconsistency in PWP values, in the pots
and the plate test, could be attributed to that we might be over-
estimated the PWP in the pots experiments, to ensure that seed-
lings have died. However, the water release of retained water by
hydrogels under different conditions needs to be investigated in
further studies. It is worthy to note that, the increase in soil WHC, in
the pots experiment, might be attributed not only to the water
 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285
absorbed by the hydrogels, but also, could be due to the reduction
in the Ksat, thus decreasing water drainage below the root zone
(Bhardwaj et al., 2007; Han et al., 2013).
The results of this study confirm preliminary studies which have
compared the increase in PAW, due to the hydrogel amendments,
and the survival time of trees. In the current study, the seedlings'
survival time was positively correlated (r ¼ 0.95) with the PAW.
Obtained results are in agreement with the results of Agaba et al.
(2010), in which they indicated that amending the sandy soil
with 0.4% hydrogel significantly increased PAW by about three-fold
in eight of the nine tested tree species and prolonged survival for all
the nine tree species. Moreover, the results of seedlings survival are
in agreement with earlier publications on the survival of Pinus trees
grown on sandy soils amended with hydrogel under water stress
(Agaba et al., 2010; Andry et al., 2009; El-Asmar et al., 2017;
Hüttermann et al., 1999) and with those reporting improved sur-
vival of seedlings for dryland afforestation (Chirino, Vilagrosa, &
Vallejo, 2011; Orikiriza et al., 2013). Furthermore, the results
agree with the improved survival time and the lower leaf water
potential of young citrus seedlings grown in perlite and peat media
treated with hydrogel (Arbona et al., 2005) and for the growth of
ornamental trees (Dehganl, Yeagerl, & Almira, 1994). However,
other studies reported negative effects on Aleppo pine grown on
loam soil in Spain (Del Campo, Hermoso, Flors, Lidon, & Navarro-
Cerrillo, 2011).
After eight days of ceasing irrigation, seedlings grown in WS-
amended soil had higher DWC compared to the control. Since,
the soils amended with the WS, especially, the WSF, retained much
more water during the irrigation period than the control soils, they
could afford to lose more water and still retain more soil moisture
than control soil. In control soil, 50% of the PAW was evapo-
transpired after 5 days (8 days before the seedlings died), whereas,
in the case of the seedlings growing on WS-treated soil, it took 12,
10 and 7 days for WSF, WSM and WSL respectively. The results
disagreed with those of Agaba et al. (2010), in which they found
that the addition of Luquasorb (0.4%, w/w) decreased the daily
evapotranspiration of eight tested tree species. This conflict might
be due to the different plant species, hydrogel type, concentration
and particle size.
During the water stress period, a significantly better growth of
the seedlings (in terms of plant high and TDM), together with a
higher leaves RWC were observed for the WS-treated soil as
compared to the control. The improved growth of WS-treated
seedlings could be attributed to the increase in PAW which
increased the seedlings survival (r ¼ 0.96) and thus, more dry
matter accumulated. Furthermore, the increase in seedlings growth
parameters was closely dependent on the increase in PAW, i.e., RWC
of leaves (r ¼ 0.89), which promote the photosynthesis resulting in
the higher dry matter (r ¼ 0.88) and higher plant height (r ¼ 0.91).
The results are in accordance with the findings of (Orikiriza et al.,
2013), in which they indicated that soils treated by SAPs mark-
edly alleviated the inhibition of plant growth increased that were
caused by drought stress.
The study clearly showed that the use of hydrogel (Watersorb)
significantly reduced the downward movement of irrigation water,
thus reduced percolation. Additionally, amending the soil with
hydrogels, particularly with small sized particles, markedly
increased WHC, PAW, induce better growth of water-stressed
plants and significantly prolonged their survival. Since, the hydro-
gels mixed only in the root zone of the trees, the cost of hydrogels is
mainly depending on the amount used per tree and number of trees
per ha (Hüttermann et al., 2009). In our case, if we used 20e30 g
per seedling, with a 600 seedling per ha, an amount of
12e18 kg ha
1 is needed. This calculation was based on seedling
plants, which would be suitable for supporting seedling
283
establishment in soils with low WHC. However, older plants would
require larger amounts. The plant roots are hydrotropic; therefore,
the hydrogel amendment is expected to impact root distribution,
growth and behavior (Hüttermann et al., 1999). The feasibility of
hydrogels application in the field has been previously confirmed
(Hüttermann et al., 2009; Wang, Sun, & Wang, 1993). Where, the
application of hydrogels in afforestation increases the success of
planting and thus replanting was not necessary (Wang et al., 1993),
therefore, the final costs of afforestation was reduced. Moreover,
hydrogels application lead to better plant growth and higher yield
(Agaba et al., 2010; El-Asmar et al., 2017; Hüttermann et al., 2009,
1999). Additionally, the reduced water losses via percolation, due to
hydrogel application, leads to the avoidance of several environ-
mental and economic problems, which is of a big importance in
regions where water resources are limited and expensive.
5. Conclusion
The fine-grained WS had a higher swelling rate and re-
swellability as compared with the medium and large-grained WS.
The amendment of the sandy soil with 0.3% WS, at any particle size,
significantly reduced saturated hydraulic conductivity, and
increased both water holding capacity and available water capacity,
with higher values for the fine-grained WS. Therefore, the survival
of Guava seedlings increased from 13.0 ± 1.0 days for control to
27.0 ± 1.3, 24.0 ± 1.1 and 17.0 ± 0.7 days for WSF, WSM and WSL,
respectively. The more prolonged survival together with the
enhanced growth of the seedlings, under drought stress, was more
pronounced for the small-grained WS. The increased water content
at PWP in the laboratory and pots tests indicate that seedlings do
not have full access to the water stored in the hydrogel. Since the
water stored in the large particles was less readily available for
plant root abstraction when needed. The application of WS had no
effect on the daily water consumption, in which the values were
almost similar for all treatments as long as the control soil still had
available water to be absorbed the roots. The inconsistency in water
release from the hydrogel, under different conditions (in the plant
system and the plate test), needs to be investigated in further
studies. Further studies are also necessary for understanding the
relationship between hydrogel particle size and their durability in
the soil.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of interest
The author declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The author sincerely thanks Rich McLaughlin, Professor of Urban
Soil & Water Management, Crop and Soil Sciences department,
NCSU, USA, for providing the hydrogels used in this study. A special
thanks to Ibrahim Nassar, Professor of Soil Physics, Faculty of
Agriculture, Damanhour University, Egypt, for reviewing the
manuscript and valuable suggestions. We also thank Dr. Ibrahim
Salah, Dr. Ahmed ELghanam and Dr. Atef Nassar for their comments
on a draft of the manuscript.
References
Agaba, H., Orikiriza, L. J. B., Esegu, J. F. O., Obua, J., Kabasa, J. D., & Hüttermann, A.
284 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285
(2010). Effects of hydrogel amendment to different soils on plant available
water and survival of trees under drought conditions. Clean - Soil, Air, Water,
38(4), 328e335. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.200900245.
Ahmed, E. M. (2015). Hydrogel: Preparation, characterization, and applications: A
review. Journal of Advanced Research, 6(2), 105e121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jare.2013.07.006.
Akhter, J., Mahmood, K., Malik, K. A., Mardan, A., Ahmad, M., & Iqbal, M. M. (2004).
Effects of hydrogel amendment on water storage of sandy loam and loam soils
and seedling growth of barley, wheat and chickpea. Plant Soil and Environment,
50(10), 463e469. https://doi.org/10.17221/4059-PSE.
Andry, H., Yamamoto, T., Irie, T., Moritani, S., Inoue, M., & Fujiyama, H. (2009). Water
retention, hydraulic conductivity of hydrophilic polymers in sandy soil as
affected by temperature and water quality. Journal of Hydrology, 373(1e2),
177e183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.020.
Ankenbauer, K. J., & Loheide, S. P. (2017). The effects of soil organic matter on soil
water retention and plant water use in a meadow of the Sierra Nevada, CA.
Hydrological Processes, 31(4), 891e901. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11070.
Arbona, V., Iglesias, D. J., Jacas, J., Primo-Millo, E., Talon, M., & Go mez-Cadenas, A.
(2005). Hydrogel substrate amendment alleviates drought effects on young
citrus plants. Plant and Soil, 270(1), 73e82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-004-
1160-0.
Bai, W., Song, J., & Zhang, H. (2013). Repeated water absorbency of super-absorbent
polymers in agricultural field applications: A simulation study. Acta Agriculturae
Scandinavica Section B Soil and Plant Science, 63(5), 433e441. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09064710.2013.797488.
Banedjschafie, s, & Durner, W. (2015). Water retention properties of a sandy soil
with superabsorbent polymers as affected by aging and water quality. Journal of
Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 178, 798e806, 2002.
Belaqziz, S., Khabba, S., Er-Raki, S., Jarlan, L., Le Page, M., Kharrou, M. H., et al. (2013).
A new irrigation priority index based on remote sensing data for assessing the
networks irrigation scheduling. Agricultural Water Management, 119, 1e9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.12.011.
Beniwal, R. S., Langenfeld-Heyser, R., & Polle, A. (2010). Ectomycorrhiza and
hydrogel protect hybrid poplar from water deficit and unravel plastic responses
of xylem anatomy. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 69(2), 189e197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVEXPBOT.2010.02.005.
Bhardwaj, A. K., Shainberg, I., Goldstein, D., Warrington, D. N., & J Levy, G. (2007).
Water retention and hydraulic conductivity of cross-linked polyacrylamides in
sandy soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71(2), 406. https://doi.org/10.
2136/sssaj2006.0138.
Buchholz, F. L. (1998). The structure and properties of superabsorbents poly-
acrylates. In Buchholz, & Graham (Eds.), Modern superabsorbent polymer tech-
nology, John Wiley Sons Inc. Wiley-VCH. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
0126(200011)49.
Chen, P., Zhang, W., Luo, W., & Fang, Y. (2004). Synthesis of superabsorbent poly-
mers by irradiation and their applications in agriculture. Journal of Applied
Polymer Science, 93, 1748e1755, 93, 1748e1755 https://doi.org/10.1002/app.
20612.
Chirino, E., Vilagrosa, A., & Vallejo, V. R. (2011). Using hydrogel and clay to improve
the water status of seedlings for dryland restoration. Plant and Soil, 344(1),
99e110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0730-1.
Dane, J. H., & Hopmans, J. W. (2002). Pressure plate extractor. In J. H. Dane, &
G. C. Topp (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis: Physical methods, Part 4 (pp.
688e690). Madison: Soil Science Society of America.
Dehganl, B., Yeagerl, T. H., & Almira, F. C. (1994). HortScience : A publication of the
American society for horticultural science. HortScience, 29(6), 641e644.
Retrieved from http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/29/6/641.short.
Del Campo, A. D., Hermoso, J., Flors, J., Lidon, A., & Navarro-Cerrillo, R. M. (2011).
Nursery location and potassium enrichment in Aleppo pine stock 2. Perfor-
mance under real and hydrogel-mediated drought conditions. Forestry, 84(3),
235e245. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpr009.
El-Asmar, J., Jaafar, H., Bashour, I., Farran, M. T., & Saoud, I. P. (2017). Hydrogel
banding improves plant growth, survival, and water use efficiency in two
calcareous soils. Clean - Soil, Air, Water, 45(7), 1700251. https://doi.org/10.1002/
clen.201700251.
Fan, T., Stewart, B. A., Payne, W. A., Yong, W., Luo, J., & Gao, Y. (2005). Long-term
fertilizer and water availability effects on cereal yield and soil chemical prop-
erties in northwest China. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 69(3), 842.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0150.
Gao, L., Li, Q., Song, Z., & Wang, J. (2000). Preparation of nano-scale titania thick film
and its oxygen sensitivity. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 71(3), 179e183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-4005(00)00612-2.
Guilherme, M. R., Aouada, F. A., Fajardo, A. R., Martins, A. F., Paulino, A. T.,
Davi, M. F. T., et al. (2015). Superabsorbent hydrogels based on polysaccharides
for application in agriculture as soil conditioner and nutrient carrier: A review.
European Polymer Journal, 72, 365e385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.
2015.04.017.
Han, B., Benner, S. G., & Flores, A. N. (2018). Evaluating impacts of climate change on
future water scarcity in an intensively managed semi-arid region using a
coupled model of biophysical processes and water rights. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences Discussions, 1e53. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-140.
Han, Y., Yu, X., Yang, P., Li, B., Xu, L., & Wang, C. (2013). Dynamic study on water
diffusivity of soil with super-absorbent polymer application. Environmental
Earth Sciences, 69(1), 289e296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1956-9.
Hillel, D. (1971). Soil and water; physical principles and processes. Academic Press.
Hüttermann, A., Orikiriza, L. J. B., & Agaba, H. (2009). Review application of
superabsorbent polymers for improving the ecological chemistry of degraded
or polluted lands 1 desertification as a major problem for global sustainability.
Clean - Soil, Air, Water, 37(7), 517e526. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.200900048.
Hüttermann, A., Zommorodi, M., & Reise, K. (1999). Addition of hydrogels to soil for
prolonging the survival of Pinus halepensis seedlings subjected to drought. Soil
and Tillage Research, 50(3e4), 295e304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(99)
00023-9.
Isik, B., & Kis, M. (2004). Preparation and determination of swelling behavior of
poly(acrylamide-co-acrylic acid) hydrogels in water. Journal of Applied Polymer
Science, 94(4), 1526e1531. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.21074.
Johnson, M. S. (1984). The effects of gel-forming polyacrylamides on moisture
storage in sandy soils. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35(11),
1196e1200. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740351110.
Kay, B. D., & Angers, D. A. (1999). Structure. In M. E. Sumner (Ed.), Handbook of soil
science (pp. A229eA276). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2001.00373.x.
Langaroodi, N. B. S., Ashouri, M., Dorodian, H. R., & Azarpour, E. (2013). Study effects
of super absorbent application , saline water and irrigation management on
yield and yield components of peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L .). Annals of Bio-
logical Research, 4(1), 160e169.
Levy, G. J., Goldstein, D., & Mamedov, A. I. (2005). Saturated hydraulic conductivity
of semiarid soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 69(3), 653. https://doi.
org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0232.
Li, X., He, J. Z., Hughes, J. M., Liu, Y. R., & Zheng, Y. M. (2014). Effects of super-
absorbent polymers on a soil-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) system in the
field. Applied Soil Ecology, 73, 58e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.08.
005.
Minasny, B., & McBratney, A. B. (2018). Limited effect of organic matter on soil
available water capacity. European Journal of Soil Science, 69(1), 39e47. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12475.
Mohammadi, S., Sefti, M. V., Salehi, M. B., & Moghadam, A. M. (2015). Hydrogel
swelling properties : Comparison between conventional and nanocomposite
hydrogels for water shutoff treatment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engi-
neering, 743e753 (June) https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.
Montesano, F. F., Parente, A., Santamaria, P., Sannino, A., & Serio, F. (2015). Biode-
gradable superabsorbent hydrogel Increases Water retention properties of
growing media and plant growth. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia,
4, 451e458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.03.052.
Moutier, M., Shainberg, I., & Levy, G. J. (2000). Hydraulic gradient and wetting rate
effects on the hydraulic conductivity of two calcium vertisols. Soil Science So-
ciety of America Journal, 64(4), 1211e1219. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.
6441211x.
Orikiriza, L. J. B., Agaba, H., Eilu, G., Kabasa, J. D., Worbes, M., & Hüttermann, A.
(2013). Effects of hydrogels on tree seedling performance in temperate soils
before and after water stress. Journal of Environmental Protection, 04(07),
713e721. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2013.47082.
Shahid, S. A., Qidwai, A. A., Anwar, F., Ullah, I., & Rashid, U. (2012). Improvement in
the water retention characteristics of sandy loam soil using a newly synthesized
poly(acrylamide-co-acrylic acid)/AlZnFe 2O 4 superabsorbent hydrogel nano-
composite material. Molecules, 17(8), 9397e9412. https://doi.org/10.3390/
molecules17089397.
Shainberg, I., & Letey, J. (1984). Response of soils to sodic and saline conditions.
Hilgardia, 52(2), 1e57. https://doi.org/10.3733/hilg.v52n02p057.
Singh, J. (1997). Physical behavior of superabsorbent hydrogels in sand. Montreal:
McGill Univ.. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
30008260_Physical_behavior_of_superabsorbent_hydrogels_in_sand.
Spagnol, C., Rodrigues, F. H. A., Neto, A. G. V. C., Pereira, A. G. B., Fajardo, A. R.,
Radovanovic, E., et al. (2012). Nanocomposites based on poly(acrylamide-co-
acrylate) and cellulose nanowhiskers. European Polymer Journal, 48(3),
454e463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2011.12.005.
Spagnol, C., Rodrigues, F. H. A., Pereira, A. G. B., Fajardo, A. R., Rubira, A. F., &
Muniz, E. C. (2012). Superabsorbent hydrogel composite made of cellulose
nanofibrils and chitosan-graft-poly(acrylic acid). Carbohydrate Polymers, 87(3),
2038e2045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.10.017.
Wang, Y., & Boogher, C. A. (1987). Effect of a medium-incorporated hydrogel on
plant growth and water use of two foliage species 1. Journal of Environmental
Horticulture, 5, 125e127. September.
Wang, J., Sun, J., & Wang, Z. (1993). Studies on a series of techniques in applying
superabsorbents in planting at south hillside in lower mountain area of Beijing
(V): Analysis of cost for applying superabsorbents in afforestation. J. Beijing For.
Univ., (Supp. 13) https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.200900048.
Wei, Y., & Durian, D. J. (2014). Rain water transport and storage in a model sandy soil
with hydrogel particle additives. The European Physical Journal E, 37(97), 1e11.
https://doi.org/10.1140/epje/i2014-14097-x.
Wu, L., & Liu, M. (2008). Preparation and characterization of cellulose acetate-
coated compound fertilizer with controlled-release and water-retention. Poly-
mers for Advanced Technologies, 19(7), 785e792. https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.
1034.
Xu, S., Zhang, L., McLaughlin, N. B., Mi, J., Chen, Q., & Liu, J. (2015). Effect of synthetic
and natural water absorbing soil amendment soil physical properties under
potato production in a semi-arid region. Soil and Tillage Research, 148, 31e39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.10.002.
Yamasaki, S., & Dillenburg, L. (1999). Measurements of leaf relative water content in
Araucaria angustifolia. Revista Brasilleira de Fisiologia, 11(2), 69e75. Retrieved
from http://www.cnpdia.embrapa.br/rbfv/pdfs/v11n2p69.pdf.
 A.M. Abdallah / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7 (2019) 275e285
Yang, L., Yang, Y., Chen, Z., Guo, C., & Li, S. (2014). Influence of super absorbent
polymer on soil water retention, seed germination and plant survivals for rocky
slopes eco-engineering. Ecological Engineering, 62, 27e32. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecoleng.2013.10.019.
Yu, J., Shainberg, I., Yan, Y. L., Shi, J. G., Levy, G. J., & Mamedov, a I. (2011). Super-
absorbents and semiarid soil properties affecting water absorption. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 75(6), 2305e2313. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.
0397.
Yu, J., Shi, J. G., Ma, X., Dang, P. F., Yan, Y. L., Mamedov, A. I., et al. (2017). Super-
absorbent polymer properties and concentration effects on water retention
285
under drying conditions. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 81(4), 889.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.07.0231.
Zhang, J., Liu, R., Li, A., & Wang, A. (2006). Preparation, swelling behaviors, and
slow-release properties of a poly(acrylic acid-co-acrylamide)/sodium humate
superabsorbent composite. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 45(1),
48e53. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie050745j.
Zhou, B., Liao, R., Li, Y., Gu, T., Yang, P., Feng, J., et al. (2012). Water-absorption
characteristics of organic-inorganic composite superabsorbent polymers and its
effect on summer maize root growth. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 126(2),
423e435. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.36652.