Effects of Magnetized Water and Irrigation Water ...

Technical Note

Effects of Magnetized Water and Irrigation Water Salinity on Soil Moisture Distribution in Trickle Irrigation Behrouz Mostafazadeh-Fard1; Mojtaba Khoshravesh2; Sayed-Farhad Mousavi3; and Ali-Reza Kiani4 Abstract: Magnetized water is obtained by passing water through a strong permanent magnet installed in or on a feed pipeline. This study was performed at Gorgan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Gorgan province, Iran, to investigate soil moisture distribution under trickle irrigation. Two main treatments of magnetic and nonmagnetic water and three subtreatments of irrigation water salts, including well water as a control, 200-ppm calcium carbonate, and 400-ppm calcium carbonate were used. The experiment was laid out with a complete randomized block design with three replications. Soil moisture distribution around the emitters were measured 24 h after irrigation during the 3-month irrigation period. The results showed that the mean soil moisture contents at depths of 0–20, 20–40, and 40–60 cm below the emitter for the magnetized irrigation water treatment were more than the nonmagnetized irrigation water treatment, and the differences were significant at the 5% level. The irrigation with magnetic water as compared with the nonmagnetic water increased soil moisture up to 7.5%, and this increase was significant at the 1% level. The effect of irrigation water salinity on soil moisture was significant. The highest soil moisture content was from the 400-ppm calcium carbonate subtreatment. The use of magnetized water for irrigation is recommended to save irrigation water. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000304. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers. CE Database subject headings: Trickle irrigation; Soil water; Salinity. Author keywords: Magnetic water; Trickle irrigation; Soil moisture; Salinity.

Introduction Agriculture uses 94% of available water in Iran (Alizadeh and Keshavarz 2005). Because of the limited water resources, better use of available water resources and use of recycled water, low salinity water, and medium salinity water for irrigation is important. The use of poor-quality irrigation water with high salinity is one of the main problems in agriculture. To reclaim soil and water and to reduce soil moisture stress, magnetized water can be used (Srivastava et al. 1976; Kney and Parsons 2006). Magnetic water is obtained by passing water through permanent magnets or through the electromagnets installed in or on a feed pipeline (Higashitani et al. 1993). The permanent ceramic magnets or electromagnets are installed around the incoming water pipe. According to Ampere’s law, when electricity passes through a wire, a magnetized field will be created around it. Up to now, different devices have been produced to magnetize water. In spite of a variety of structures and shapes for these devices, the performing mechanism is almost the same. When a fluid passes through the magnetized field, its structure and some physical characteristic such as density, salt solution capacity, and deposition 1 Professor, Irrigation Dept., College of Agriculture, Isfahan Univ. of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected] 2 Graduate Student, Irrigation Dept., College of Agriculture, Isfahan Univ. of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran. 3 Professor, Irrigation Dept., College of Agriculture, Isfahan Univ. of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran. 4 Researcher, Gorgan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Gorgan, 41996-13475, Iran. Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 12, 2010; approved on October 1, 2010; published online on October 22, 2010. Discussion period open until November 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 6, June 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437/2011/6-398–402/$25.00.

ratio of solid particles will be changed (Higashitani et al. 1993). As the calcium and carbonate ions enter into the area that are influenced by the magnets, they are pushed in opposite directions, because of their opposite charges (Fig. 1). As all of the calcium ions are pushed in one direction and all of the carbonate anions are pushed in the opposite direction, they tend to collide. When these collisions occur, the ions stick together, forming a solid form of calcium carbonate called aragonite. Because these microscopic crystals are forced to form while moving in the water, they do not have an opportunity to attach themselves to the pipelines. In other words, because of the inspiration force on the fluid and the polarity of water, anions and cations vibrate and get close together and finally stick. Therefore, the electrical charge of suspended particles decreases, and they stay in the “snowball phenomenon” and suspend in water. The changes caused by the magnetic influence depend on many factors, such as strength of the magnetic field, direction of applied magnetized field, duration of magnetic exposure, flow rate of the solution, additives present in the system, and the pH (Higashitani et al. 1993; Marcus and Rashin 1994; Baker and Judd 1996; Parsons et al. 1997; Gabrielli et al. 2001; Chibowski et al. 2005). The magnetized water has been studied by many researches (e.g., Iwasaka and Ueno 1998; Yamamoto et al. 1998; Zhou et al. 2000; Inaba et al. 2004; Ghauri and Ansari 2006). An experimental study showed that a relatively weak magnetic influence (field) increased the viscosity of water and consequently caused the stronger hydrogen bonds under the magnetic field (Ghauri and Ansari 2006). One of the new irrigation methods that is rapidly expanding in use is trickle irrigation, in which water distribution uniformity can be as high as 95% if managed properly. Trickle or drip irrigation systems consist of small emitters, either buried or placed on the soil surface, discharging water at a controlled rate. Water is applied on a frequent basis to prevent moisture stress in the plant by maintaining favorable soil moisture conditions (Cook et al. 2003).

398 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2011 Downloaded 29 Jun 2011 to 194.146.150.132. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 1. Permanent magnets installed on a pipeline; 1, 2, and 3 represent the inflow section, the magnets, and the outflow section, respectively

The distribution pattern of soil water resulting from trickle irrigation is quite different from those resulting from conventional irrigation methods (Wang et al. 2006; Elmaloglou and Malamos 2006; Elmaloglouand and Diamantopoulos 2007). Cote et al. (2003) investigated the effect of intermittent water application on the wetting front advance in subsurface trickle irrigation. They concluded that advance in wetting front is significantly affected by the total amount of water applied. In an established vineyard on sandy clay soil, the effect of trickle irrigation interval on soil moisture, salt distribution, and water use efficiency was studied by Goldberg et al. (1971). They found that the distribution of soil moisture and salinity resulting from irrigation is two dimensional, with high moisture content along and beneath the row and decreasing laterally. Alikhan et al. (1996) studied the distribution of water-in-soil profile under point source and evaluated the effect of flow intensity, volume, and concentration of salt in irrigation water on the wetting front and soil moisture distribution. They showed that the wetting front increases with increase in the emitter discharge and the volume of irrigation water. Magnetized water has been studied by many researches. However, to date, there has been no study about the effects of magnetized water on soil moisture in trickle irrigation. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of magnetized water and irrigation water salinity on soil moisture distribution in trickle irrigation.

irrigation water salinity treatment by closing the valves located at the beginning of the other laterals. Therefore, three laterals from each subunit were irrigated with the same irrigation water salinity at once, and after that, three other laterals were irrigated with different irrigation water salinity, and this procedure continued until all irrigation water salinity treatments were applied. All treatments were applied consecutively on the same day. An electropump supplied water to the laterals from the water source at desired pressure of 100 kPa. The inline, long-path, emitters (trade name Typhoon), with discharge of 4 l=h, operating at a pressure of 1 atm, were used. All pipes used in the system were polyethylene. In total, 10 irrigations (the irrigation number, IN) with irrigation intervals of 10 days were applied. The amount of applied irrigation water was determined on the basis of the initial soil moisture content and soil moisture deficit before irrigation to assure enough moisture content around the measurement points. The schematic drawing of part of the irrigation system that was used in the field is shown in Fig. 2. Two main treatments of magnetic (I 1 ) and nonmagnetic irrigation water (I 2 ) and three subtreatments of irrigation water salts, including well water as a control (S1 ), 200-ppm calcium carbonate (S2 ), and 400-ppm calcium carbonate (S3 ) were used (Fig. 2). The experiment was performed as a complete randomized block design with three replications. To determine soil moisture distribution around the emitters, soil moisture measurements where made after the first, fifth, and tenth irrigation, 24 h after irrigation using a soil moisture measurement device called TRIME. This device was calibrated for the experimental field using 40 soil moisture measurements. Soil moisture was measured at a horizontal distance of 0, 25, and 50 cm from the emitters and depth of 0, 20, 40, and 60 cm from the soil surface. The following notations were used for soil moisture measurements: • Y 1 , at the emitter on the soil surface; • Y 2 , at the emitter at a depth of 20 cm;

Materials and Methods An experimental field belonging to Gorgan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Gorgan province, Iran, was used to collect field data during the summer of 2009. Gorgan (36°45′ N, 54° 25′ E), with elevation of about 5.5 m above mean sea level, is located in northern Iran and has an annual rainfall of 527.4 mm, annual evapotranspiration demand of 1,321.1 mm, average annual temperature of 17.6°C, and mean annual humidity of 71%. A trickle irrigation experiment was used to collect data. The trickle irrigation system had two subunits: one subunit for the magnetic water and one subunit for the nonmagnetic water. Each subunit had nine laterals, spaced 1 m apart, with a diameter of 16 mm and length of 30 m, which received water from a secondary pipe with diameter of 63 mm. Each lateral had 30 emitters, spaced 1 m apart. The control valves were installed at the beginning of each subunit, and the subunits were spaced 2 m apart. Each subunit was divided into three sections, and each section had three laterals. During irrigation, one lateral of each section receives the desired

Fig. 2. Schematic drawing of the experimental system, including the magnetized and nonmagnetized subsystems

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2011 / 399 Downloaded 29 Jun 2011 to 194.146.150.132. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Table 1. Physical Characteristics of Soil for the Experimental Field Depth (cm) 0–20 20–40 40–60

Clay (%)

Silt (%)

Sand (%)

Texture

FC (%)

WP (%)

ρb (gr=cm3 )

23.4 27.4 27.4

40 42 50

36.6 30.6 22.6

Loam Clay loam Clay loam

27 28 28

15 16 16

1.3 1.35 1.4

• • • • • • • • •

Y 3 , at the emitter at a depth of 40 cm; Y 4 , at the emitter at a depth of 60 cm; Y 5 , at distance of 25 cm from the emitter at the soil surface; Y 6 , at distance of 25 cm from the emitter at a depth of 20 cm; Y 7 , at distance of 25 cm from the emitter at a depth of 40 cm; Y 8 , at distance of 25 cm from the emitter at a depth of 60 cm; Y 9 , at distance of 50 cm from the emitter at the soil surface; Y 10 , at distance of 50 cm from the emitter at a depth of 20 cm; Y 11 , at distance of 50 cm from the emitter at a depth of 40 cm; and • Y 12 , at distance of 50 cm from the emitter at a depth of 60 cm. For the period that soil moisture measurements were made and during the first, fifth, and the tenth irrigation, there was no rainfall. The field was irrigated for the first time with no crop cover. To determine the dry soil bulk density, three undisturbed samples were taken from each soil layer and the mass of dry soil was divided by the bulk volume of soil. The physical characteristics of the soil for the experimental field are shown in Table 1. Soil moisture given in Table 1 are on the basis of dry mass. In Table 1, FC, WP, and ρb represent field capacity, permanent wilting point, and soil bulk density, respectively. The chemical characteristics of the original irrigation water (well water) are given in Table 2. In Table 2, EC is electrical conductivity of irrigation water, and dS=m (deciSiemens per meter) is unit of EC which is equivalent to millimhos=cm. Magnetic water can be obtained by passing water through a magnet installed on the secondary pipe (Fig. 2). To magnetize water, two magnetic instruments were used simultaneously to have better magnetizing influence. The first instrument was an electromagnet with the trade name of Big Magnet Water that was installed around the secondary pipe before the entrance of water to the laterals to produce electrical current. For the electromagnet, two sections of the secondary pipe each with a length of about 0.5 m and distance of about 0.5 m from each other were wrapped by electrical wire, and the wires were connected to the electromagnet box that received its power from the city electrical power supply. The second instrument was the permanent magnets (ceramic magnets) with the trade name of Saba Poul that were installed around the secondary pipe before the entrance of water to the laterals. The electromagnet was installed before the permanent magnets.

Results and Discussion Effects of Magnetized and Nonmagnetized Irrigation Water on Soil Moisture Analysis of variance presented in Table 3 shows that the effect of magnetized irrigation water on soil moisture at a depth of 0–20 cm below the emitter was significant at the 1% level. Similar results Table 2. Chemical Characteristics of the Well Water EC (dS=m)

0.66

pH

7.6

Ions (meq=L)

Sodium absorption ratio

Na

Ca

Mg

1.8

3.2

2.4

1.08

were obtained for the other two soil depths of 20–40 and 40–60 cm. At a depth of 0–20 cm below the emitter, the mean soil moisture for the magnetized irrigation water treatment was more than the nonmagnetized irrigation water treatment, and the differences were significant at the 5% level (Table 4). The interaction effect of magnetized irrigation water with irrigation water salinity on soil moisture at a depth of 0–20 cm below the emitter was not significant (Table 3). Similar results were obtained for the other two soil depths of 20–40 and 40–60 cm. Fig. 3 shows the comparison of soil moisture at a distance of 25 cm from the emitter at different soil depths after the first irrigation for different treatments. This figure shows that irrigation with the magnetized irrigation water caused higher soil moisture content as compared with the nonmagnetized irrigation water for different irrigation water salinities. Similar results were obtained for the fifth and tenth irrigations as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. All the measured soil moisture content for all locations from the emitter for the magnetized and the nonmagnetized irrigation water treatments were evaluated using an Excel program. The overall results showed that the magnetized irrigation water treatment as compared with the nonmagnetized irrigation water treatment caused, on average, up to a 7.5% increase in soil moisture content, and this increase was significant at the 1% level. The reason that soil moisture is higher for the magnetized irrigation water might be because of two reasons. First, under magnetized conditions, the water molecules that have been influenced by hydrogenic bonds and Van der Waals forces and were in reactions with the ions are released and make the water more cohesive. Therefore, the water molecules easily attach to the soil particles and do not leach to the lower soil depths and the water molecules easily penetrate into the micro spaces of the soil particles and are prevented from moving to the lower soil depths. The second reason is that, when the water passes through the magnetized field, its structure and some physical characteristics will be changed. As the calcium and carbonate ions enter into the area that are influenced by the magnets, they are pushed in opposite directions because of their opposite charges. As all of the calcium ions are pushed in one direction, and all of the carbonate anions are pushed in the opposite direction, they tend to collide. When these collisions occur, the ions stick together, forming a solid form of calcium carbonate called aragonite. Because these microscopic crystals are forced to form while moving in the water, they do not have an opportunity to attach themselves to the pipelines. Therefore, the salts do not precipitate in the pipelines, and they are moved to the soil profile and cause higher soil osmotic pressure. This reduces the evapotranspiration rate and consequently the higher soil moisture content occurs in the soil profile. Effect of Irrigation Water Salinity on Soil Moisture The effect of irrigation water salinity on soil moisture at a depth of 0–20 cm below the emitter was significant at the 1% level (Table 3). For the other two soil depths of 20–40 and 40–60 cm, the effect of irrigation water salinity on soil moisture was significant for most locations. As shown in Table 4, for most locations, there was no significant difference between the irrigation water salinity of the control and the irrigation water salinity of 200-ppm calcium carbonate treatments, but there was a significant difference between


Table 3. Analysis of Variance for Parameters

Parameter I Error S I×S Error IN IN × I IN × S I × IN × S Error

Degrees of freedom 1 4 2 2 8 1 1 2 2 12

Mean squares Y2

Y1 c

52.84 0.375 9.06c 0.008a 0.161 7.01c 0.714c 4.39c 0.018a 0.057

Y3 c

30.19 0.74 7.29c 0.684a 0.62 4.98c 1.02a 0.921a 0.124a 0.485

Y4 c

38.54 7.09 4.06b 0.141a 0.811 5.89c 0.916a 0.22a 0.065a 0.894

Y5 c

20.48 8.04 0.176a 0.043a 0.565 3.11a 0.016a 0.035a 0.041a 1.01

Y6 c

18.41 1.02 9.39c 0.835a 0.254 2.008a 0.968a 1.04a 0.09a 0.679

Y7 c

38.69 1.48 13.36c 0.306a 0.271 3.9a 0.423a 2.55a 0.075a 1.467

Y8 c

54.74 2.18 7.08c 0.581a 0.456 4.85b 1.68a 1.71a 0.369a 1.169

Y9 c

17.47 0.707 11.58c 0.518a 0.21 16.5c 2.35a 1.85a 0.433a 0.874

Y 10 c

36.95 3.35 7.37c 0.348a 0.536 12.08c 1.84a 1.57a 0.079a 1.21

c

39.9 3.27 9.06c 0.701a 0.422 11.9c 3.99c 1.77a 0.211a 0.654

Y 11

Y 12 c

17.04 5.32 5.73b 0.02a 1.16 16.53c 1.65a 0.689a 0.084a 1.17

13.13c 1.86 5.21a 0.195a 0.803 48.4c 1.35a 0.986a 0.172a 2.223

Note: In column 1, I = type of irrigation water, S = irrigation water salinity, and IN = irrigation number. The given errors are for type of irrigation water, irrigation water salinity and the total, respectively. a Nonsignificant. b Significant at 5% level. c Significant at 1% level. Table 4. Comparison of the Measured Average Volumetric Soil Moisture for Different Locations from the Emitter Soil moisture

Treatment I I1 I2 S S1 S2 S3 IN 1st 5th 10th

Y1

Y2

Y3

Y4

Y5

Y6

Y7

Y8

Y9

Y 10

Y 11

Y 12

32.28 a 30.30 b

33.56 a 32.07 b

35.07 a 33.02 b

33.96 a 31.72 b

31.04 a 29.87 b

33.05 a 31.35 b

34.65 a 32.63 b

32.76 a 31.62 b

30.60 a 28.94 b

32.27 a 30.55 b

32.06 a 30.13 b

31.42 a 30.34 b

30.73 c 31.05 b 32.08 a

32.39 b 32.51 b 33.55 a

33.86 b 34.06 b 34.76 a

32.35 b 32.86 b 33.44 a

29.93 b 30.16 b 31.28 a

31.54 b 31.89 b 33.17 a

33.22 b 33.34 b 34.36 a

31.45 c 32.07 b 33.04 a

29.07 b 29.93 a 30.31 a

30.80 b 31.24 b 32.19 a

31.16 b 31.18 b 32.15 a

30.40 b 30.92 ab 31.47 a

32.01 a 30.89 b 30.97 b

33.08 a 33.16 a 32.21 b

33.98 b 34.88 a 33.82 b

32.88 b 33.68 a 33.47 ab

30.48 ab 30.11 b 30.78 a

32.57 a 32.3 ab 31.68 b

33.6 ab 34.15 a 33.11 b

32.38 b 33.03 a 31.15 c

28.83 b 30.18 a 30.31 a

30.53 c 31.57 b 32.13 a

31.36 b 30.60 c 32.51 a

29.64 b 30.37 b 32.77 a

Note: In each column, the values followed by at least one common character are not statistically different at 5% probability level. Each value in the table is an average of three replications.

the irrigation water salinity of 200-ppm calcium carbonate and the irrigation water salinity of 400-ppm calcium carbonate treatments and between the irrigation water salinity of the control and the irrigation water salinity of 400-ppm calcium carbonate treatments. At a distance of 25 cm from emitter, at a depth of 40–60 cm, there were significant differences among all irrigation water salinity treatments, but at a distance of 50 cm from emitter, there was a significant difference only between the irrigation water salinity

of the control and the irrigation water salinity of 400-ppm calcium carbonate treatments. For different locations to the emitter, the highest soil moisture content belonged to the irrigation water salinity of 400-ppm calcium carbonate (Table 4). For example, at a distance of 25 cm from the emitter, as shown in Figs. 3–5, in general, the soil moisture content is higher at higher irrigation water salinity treatments and at lower soil depths. This is because

Fig. 3. Comparison of volumetric soil moisture content at a distance of 25 cm from the emitter at different soil depths after the first irrigation for different treatments

Fig. 4. Comparison of volumetric soil moisture at a distance of 25 cm from the emitter at different soil depths after the fifth irrigation for different treatments

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2011 / 401 Downloaded 29 Jun 2011 to 194.146.150.132. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 5. Comparison of volumetric soil moisture at a distance of 25 cm from the emitter at different soil depths after the tenth irrigation for different treatments

irrigation water with higher salinity causes salts to accumulate in the soil profile and increases the soil osmotic pressure. This phenomenon results in less available soil moisture for evaporation, especially at lower soil depths, and higher soil moisture content for the soil profile. In saline soils, the suction that is required to extract soil water must be greater than the soil osmotic pressure, and the evapotranspiration is mainly affected by soil salinity. Therefore, more water remains in the soil and less soil water will be available for evaporation. The studies by Akhtar et al. (1994), Mostafazadeh-Fard et al. (2008), and Heidarpour et al. (2009) showed that in saline soils, soil water is less available to the crop and an increase in EC of irrigation water effectively decreases the evapotranspiration, especially under low leaching fraction.

Conclusions Because of limited water resources, better use of available water resources and low to medium irrigation water salinities for irrigation is important. One of the methods that can improve soil moisture conditions for better plant growth is the use of magnetized irrigation water. The overall results show that irrigation with magnetic water as compared with nonmagnetic water increased soil moisture up to 7.5% and the increase was significant. The study of the magnetic water for irrigation is important because the use of magnetic water can improve soil moisture condition and probably reduce soil water loss. Higher soil moisture content can probably reduce soil water loss as deep percolation, the result of which is less groundwater pollution. The use of magnetic water for trickle irrigation or other irrigation methods to improve soil moisture condition is recommended.

Acknowledgments This research was funded by Isfahan University of Technology and Gorgan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center. This assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

References Akhtar, J., Gorham, J., and Qureshi, R. H. (1994). “Combined effect of salinity and hypoxia in wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.) and wheatThinopyrum amphiploids.” Plant Soil, 166(1), 47–54. Alikhan, A., Yitayev, M., and Warrick, W. (1996). “Field evaluation of water and solute distribution from a point source.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 122(4), 221–227.

Alizadeh, A., and Keshavarz, A. (2005). “Status of agricultural water use in Iran. Water management in the United States and Iran.” Proc. IranianAmerican workshop on Water Conservation, Reuse and Recycling, the National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 94–105. Baker, J. S., and Judd, S. J. (1996). “Magnetic amelioration of scale formation.” Water Res., 30(2), 247–260. Chibowski, E., Szcześ, A., and Hołysz, L. (2005). “Influence of sodium dodecyl sulfate and static magnetic field on the properties of freshly precipitated calcium carbonate.” Langmuir, 21(18), 8114–8122. Cook, F. J., Thorburn, P. J., Fitch, P., and Bristow, K. L. (2003). “WetUp: A software tool to display approximate wetting patterns from drippers.” Irrig. Sci., 22(3–4), 129–134. Cote, C. M., Bristow, K. L., Charlesworth, P. B., Cook, F. J., and Thorburn, P. J. (2003). “Analysis of soil wetting and solute transport in subsurface trickle irrigation.” Irrig. Sci., 22(3–4), 143–156. Elmaloglou, S., and Diamantopoulos, E. (2007). “Wetting front advance patterns and water losses by deep percolation under the root zone as influenced by pulsed drip irrigation.” Agric. Water Manage., 90(1–2), 160–163. Elmaloglou, S. T., and Malamos, N. (2006). “A methodology for determining the surface and vertical components of the wetting front under a surface point source, with root water uptake and evaporation.” Irrig. Drain, 55(1), 99–111. Gabrielli, C., Jaouhari, R., Maurin, G., and Keddam, M. (2001). “Magnetic water treatment for scale prevention.” Water Res., 35(13), 3249–3259. Ghauri, S. A., and Ansari, M. S. (2006). “Increase of water viscosity under the influence of magnetic field.” J. Appl. Phys., 100(6), 2. Goldberg, S. D., Rinot, M., and Karu, N. (1971). “Effect of trickle irrigation intervals on distribution and utilization of soil moisture in a vineyard.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 35(1), 127–130. Heidarpour, M., Mostafazadeh-Fard, B., Arzani, A., Aghakhani, A., and Feizi, M. (2009). “Effects of irrigation water salinity and leaching fraction on yield and evapotranspiration in spring wheat.” Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 40(15), 2521–2535. Higashitani, K., Kage, A., Katamura, S., Imai, K., and Hatade, S. (1993). “Effects of a magnetic field on the formation of CaCO3 particles.” J. Colloid Interface Sci., 156(1), 90–95. Inaba, H., Saitou, T., Tozaki, K., and Hayashi, H. (2004). “Effect of the magnetic field on the melting transition of H2 O and D2 O measured by a high resolution and supersensitive differential scanning calorimeter.” J. Appl. Phys., 96(11), 6127–6132. Iwasaka, M., and Ueno, S. (1998). “Structure of water molecules under 14 T magnetic field.” J. Appl. Phys., 83(11), 6459–6461. Kney, A. D., and Parsons, S. A. (2006). “A spectrophotometer-based study of magnetic water treatment: Assessment of ionic vs. surface mechanisms.” Water Res., 40(3), 517–524. Marcus, Y., and Rashin, A. (1994). “A simple empirical model describing the thermodynamics of hydration of ions of widely varying charges, sizes, and shapes.” Biophys. Chem., 51(2–3), 111–127. Mostafazadeh-Fard, B., Heidarpour, M., Aghakhani, A., and Feizi, M. (2008). “Effects of leaching on soil desalinization for wheat crop in an arid region.” Plant, Soil Environ., 54(1), 20–29. Parsons, S. A., Wang, B. L., Judd, S. J., and Stephenson, T. (1997). “Magnetic treatment of calcium carbonate scale-effect of pH control.” Water Res., 31(2), 339–342. Srivastava, S. C., Lal, P. B. B., and Sharma, B. N. (1976). “Application of solar energy in conjunction with magnetized water to boost food output.” Proc. National Solar Energy Convention, Calcutta, India, 248–250. Wang, F. X., Kang, Y., and Liu, S. P. (2006). “Effects of drip irrigation frequency on soil wetting pattern and potato growth in North China plain.” Agric. Water Manage., 79(3), 248–264. Yamamoto, I., Matsumoto, Y., Yamaguchi, M., Shimazu, Y., and Ishikawa, F. (1998). “Magnetic field effects on sol-gel phase changes in aqueous polymers.” Physica B (Amsterdam), 246–247, 408–411. Zhou, K. X., Lu, G. W., Zhou, Q. C., Song, J. H., Jiang, S. T., and Xia, H. R. (2000). “Monte Carlo simulation of liquid water in a magnetic field.” J. Appl. Phys., 88(4), 1802–1805.
