articulo

1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257169417
Effects of diatomite on soil physical properties
Article in Catena · January 2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2011.08.004
CITATIONS
17
READS
393
3 authors:
Ekrem Lütfi Aksakal
Ataturk University
22 PUBLICATIONS 128 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Ilker Angin
Ataturk University
30 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Taşkın Öztaş
Ataturk University
35 PUBLICATIONS 404 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ekrem Lütfi Aksakal on 28 June 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2. Effects of diatomite on soil physical properties
Ekrem Lutfi Aksakal a
, Ilker Angin b,
⁎, Taskin Oztas a
a
Atatürk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science, 25240, Erzurum, Turkey
b
Atatürk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, 25240, Erzurum, Turkey
a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 April 2011
Received in revised form 16 August 2011
Accepted 25 August 2011
Keywords:
Diatomite
Aggregate stability
Bulk density
Permeability coefficient
Field capacity
Organic and inorganic soil amendments are commonly added to soil for improving its physical and chemical
characteristics which promote plant growth. Although many inorganic amendments are extensively used for
this purpose, diatomite (DE) is not commonly used. This study was conducted to determine effects of diato-
mite applications (10, 20, and 30% v/v) on physical characteristics of soils with different textures (Sandy
Loam, Loam, and Clay), under laboratory conditions. The results indicated that diatomite application protects
large aggregate (N6.4 mm) formation in clay-textured soils, however it reduced the mean weight diameter in
sand-textured soil. 30% diatomite reduced mean weight diameter in sand-textured soils from 1.74 to
1.49 mm. Diatomite applications significantly increased aggregate stability of all the experimental soils in
all aggregate size fractions. In overall, aggregate stability increased from 28.04% to 45.70% with the applica-
tion rate of 30%. Diatomite application also significantly increased soil moisture content at field capacity in
SL textured soil. 30% diatomite increased field capacity in sand-textured soil in the percent of 43.78 as com-
pared with control. Therefore it is suggested that diatomite may be considered as a soil amendment agent for
improving soil physical characteristics. However, its effectiveness in enhancing soil properties depends on
initial soil factors and texture. Moreover, since its protective effect against large aggregate (N6.4 mm) forma-
tion and reducing effect on soil penetration resistance in clay textured soils, diatomite might be an alternative
soil amendment agent in soil tillage practices and seedling.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Organic and inorganic soil amendments are added to soil for im-
proving its physical and chemical characteristics which promote
plant growth. Soil conditioners vary greatly in their origin (natural or
synthetic), composition, and application rate and expected or claimed
mode of action (Wallace and Terry, 1998). These actions include; im-
provements in soil structure, aeration and drainage, increasing soil
water holding capacity, reducing soil compaction and hardpan condi-
tions, encouraging root development and increasing yield.
Synthetic soil polymers like polyacrylamide (PAM) and polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA) are effectively used at low rates in soil structural develop-
ment studies (Aksakal and Oztas, 2010; Sojka and Lentz, 1997; Zhao and
Xu, 1995). However, because synthetic polymers are easily degraded by
microorganisms, their effects are transient, often necessitating frequent
applications which involve extra costs and labor (Piccolo et al., 1997).
Addition of organic amendments can enhance soil environment by in-
creasing soil fertility. But, some source of organic inputs may contain
heavy metals and soluble salts, which could be harmful to soil (Angin
and Yaganoglu, 2009; McGrath et al., 2000, Vaca-Paulín et al., 2006)
and plants, and could be a source of contamination due to its potential
leaching to groundwater (Correa et al., 2006; Gascó et al., 2005).
Many inorganic amendments including calcined clay minerals, clinop-
tilolite, expanded shale, pumice, quartz, sintered fly ash, slag, perlite
and vermiculite have been extensively used for improving soil charac-
teristics (Carrow, 1993; Githinji et al., 2010; Li et al., 2000). However,
use of diatomite (DE) as a soil conditioner is new and its effect on soil
physical properties has not been studied.
Diatomite (Diatomaceous Earth or DE) is a sedimentary rock primarily
composed of the fossilized remains of unicellular fresh water plants
known as Diatoms. Diatomite contains up to 80–90% voids (Khraisheh
et al., 2004) and has large surface area of 50–200 m2
g−1
(Wu et al.,
2005), which is suggested to improve soil physical properties. “Diatomite
is a chalk-like, soft, friable, earthy, very fine-grained, siliceous sedi-
mentary rock, usually light in color. It is very finely porous, very low
in density, and essentially chemically inert in most liquids and gasses”
(USGS, 2008). It is widely used as filtering material and horticultural
grade medium for all growing applications. However, its use in agricul-
ture as a physical and chemical amendment is not so common. Therefore,
the objective of this study was to determine the effects of diatomite appli-
cation on soil physical properties and structural characteristics.
2. Materials and methods
This study was conducted under laboratory conditions with a rela-
tive humidity of 60±5% and an average temperature of 25±2 °C. The
Catena 88 (2012) 1–5
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 442 2312615; fax: +90 442 2360958.
E-mail address: iangin@atauni.edu.tr (I. Angin).
0341-8162/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.catena.2011.08.004
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Catena
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/catena

3. experimental soil samples were collected from the 0 to 20 cm depth
of commonly distributed soil great groups in the agricultural fields of
Erzurum, Turkey (39° 55′ N, 41° 61′ E). Soils were classified as Ustorthent,
Fluvaquent and Pellustert according to Soil Survey Staff (1992).
The soil samples were air-dried and crumbled to pass 4 mm sieve.
Diatomite passed through 2 mm sieve was applied with the rates of
10, 20, and 30% on volume/volume (v/v) basis, corresponding to
weight/weight (w/w) basis of 3.06%, 6.12%, and 9.18% for soil I,
3.33%, 6.66%, and 9.99% for soil II and 4.06%, 8.12%, and 12.18% for
soil III. Soil and diatomite with defined amounts were mixed and con-
veyed to the experimental pots. The control soil without diatomite
application was also mixed itself in order to reduce experimental errors
on structural parameters because of mixing. The mixtures were then
filled into thirty six plastic containers (40 cm in length and 25 cm in
wide) to a depth of 15 cm. Soils were incubated for three months at
near field capacity by adding water with 3 days intervals under constant
laboratory conditions. General characteristics of diatomite and soils
prior to the experiment were given in Table 1.
Particle size distribution was determined using the Bouyoucos
hydrometer method (Gee and Bauder, 1986), pH and electrical conduc-
tivity were measured according to McLean (1982) and Rhoades (1982a).
Soil organic matter was determined using the Smith–Weldon method
(Nelson and Sommers, 1982). Lime content of the soils was determined
with “Scheibler Calcimeter” as described in Nelson (1982). Cation ex-
change capacity was determined with flame photometer using sodium
acetate — ammonium acetate buffered at pH 7 (Rhoades, 1982b). Field
capacity and wilting point were determined in −0.033 MPa and
−1.5 MPa pressures, respectively, using a membrane extractor (Cassel
and Nielsen, 1986). Available water was calculated from the difference
between the moisture contents of field capacity and wilting point.
Bulk density was determined as described by Blake and Hartge (1986).
Permeability coefficient was calculated by values recorded under satu-
rated conditions with an ICW constant head permeameter (Klute and
Dirksen, 1986). Aggregate stability was determined with Yoder type
wet sieving apparatus, mean weight diameters and dry aggregate size
distributions were determined using a rotary sieve (b0.42; 0.42–0.84;
0.84–2.0; 2.0–6.4; 6.4–12.7 and N12.7 mm) (Kemper and Rosenau,
1986). Air permeability was determined using Kmoch apparatus (Corey,
1986). Penetration resistance was determined using a pocket penetrom-
eter as described by Oztas et al. (1999).
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed by SPSS Statistical
Package (SPSS 13.0, SPSS Science, Chicago, IL) using GLM. The Duncan's
Multiple Range Test was used for testing mean differences.
3. Results and discussion
Diatomite application had significant effect on soil structural pa-
rameters. Effects of diatomite application on aggregate size distribution
and mean weight diameter (MWD) were given in Table 2. While diato-
mite application increased the rate of soil aggregates smaller than
0.84 mm in Soil I, it decreased the rates of soil aggregates greater than
6.4 mm in Soils II and III. On the control samples, the rates of soil aggre-
gate fractions greater than 12.7 mm in Soils II and III were 34.4 and
51.2%, respectively. This was due to large aggregate formation in these
soils. The reason for decreasing the rates of soil aggregate fractions
greater than 6.4 mm in Soils II and III was that the control samples pro-
duced large aggregates during incubation, but diatomite applied to soils
reduced large aggregate formation. Diatomite application significantly
(Pb0.05) decreased the mean aggregate diameter in all soils, but the
highest decreasing rate was obtained from Soil III. It was expected
because the control sample of Soil III has the highest mean weight diam-
eter because of large aggregate formation. These results indicate that di-
atomite might be used for reducing large aggregate formation in soils
with high clay and silt contents.
Diatomite applications significantly (Pb0.05) increased aggregate
stability of all the soils in all aggregate size fractions as compared to
the controls (Table 3). The effectiveness of diatomite on aggregate
stability increased with the increases in application doses. In all the
soils studied, the highest aggregate stability values were obtained
from the maximum dose (30%) of diatomite application in all aggre-
gate size fractions.
In all aggregate size fractions of the all experimental soils, the
highest increasing rate in aggregate stability value compared to the
control was obtained from the highest application dose (30%) of diat-
omite application. The increasing rates in aggregate stability of Soil I
as compared to the control for different aggregate size fractions;
b0.42, 0.42–0.84, 0.84–2.0, 2.0–6.4, 6.4–12.7, and N12.7 mm were
143.5, 51.1, 30.7, 61.0, 117.8, and 146.9%, respectively. Similarly, the
increasing rates were 72.9, 14.7, 37.9, 34.4, 101.6, and 64.4% for
Soils II and 111.3, 155.2, 31.2, 62.2, 74.6, and 66.7% for Soil III,
Table 1
General physical and chemical properties of the soils and diatomite.
Properties Materials
Soil I Soil II Soil III Diatomite (DE)
Clay (%) 9.94 16.27 64.47 –
Silt (%) 18.14 32.85 19.55 –
Sand (%) 71.92 50.88 15.98 –
Textural Class Sandy loam Loam Clay –
Great Soil Group Ustorthent Fluvaquent Pellustert –
pHa
7.55 7.68 7.82 8.55
ECa
(mS cm−1
) 0.11 0.20 0.32 0.46
CEC (cmol(+) kg−1
) 18.76 36.63 47.09 22.21
CaCO3 (%) 0.49 0.57 0.87 1.20
Organic matter (%) 1.43 2.36 2.08 0.07
Bulk density (g cm− 3
) 1.34 1.23 1.01 0.41
Particle size distribution (%) 2000–1000 μ 13.71
1000–500 μ 15.94
500–297 μ 4.99
297–250 μ 3.11
250–100 μ 2.60
100–74 μ 2.89
74–53 μ 2.42
b53 μ 54.34
a
Determined in 1:2.5 (soil:water) extract.
2 E.L. Aksakal et al. / Catena 88 (2012) 1–5

4. respectively. The highest increasing rates were obtained for the ag-
gregate size fractions of which control aggregate stability values
were the lowest. Positive effect of diatomite on aggregate stability
was the highest in Soil I of which sand content was the highest. It
might be attributed to large specific surface of diatomite that in-
creases soil's colloidal fraction. Wu et al. (2005), reported that diato-
mite has large surface area of 50–200 m2
g−1
. It may also due to
higher amounts of diatomite particles smaller than 53 μ (Table 1).
On the other hand, the effects of diatomite application on bulk density,
field capacity, wilting point, available water, permeability coefficient, air
permeability, and penetration resistance of soils were given in Table 4.
Diatomite applications in all three soils significantly (Pb0.05) re-
duced bulk density. Increases in the application doses of diatomite
decreased soil bulk density (Table 4). In Soil I, the control bulk density
value (1.34 g cm−3
) decreased to 1.27, 1.21, and 1.16 g cm−3
with 10,
20, and 30% diatomite application, respectively. In all soils, the maxi-
mum decreasing rates in bulk density values were obtained from the
maximum diatomite application dose (30%). The decreasing rates in
bulk density values at the highest diatomite application dose as com-
pared to the control were 13.4% for Soil I, 16.3% for Soil II and 14.9%
for Soil III. These results were expected because of low bulk density
(0.41 g cm−3
) and highly porous structure of diatomite.
Diatomite application had significant (Pb0.05) positive effect on
moisture content of soil at field capacity, especially in Soils I and II
which have higher amounts of sand content (Table 4). Increases in
application doses of diatomite increased field capacity, and the max-
imum field capacity values were obtained for the samples treated
with the highest diatomite application dose. In Soil I, the increasing
rates in field capacity were 17.6, 34.2, and 43.8% for 10, 20, and 30%
diatomite doses, respectively. These rates were 16.6, 22.3, and 26.1%
for Soil II. The effectiveness of diatomite application on field capacity
was much higher in soils with higher amounts of sand. Angin et al.
(2011), used similar doses and reported that diatomite application in-
creased meso and micro porosity in a sandy-loam textured soil. This
result is important for considering diatomite as an alternative soil
amendment agent in improving soil water conditions. On contrary,
although there were no statistically significant differences in field ca-
pacity values of diatomite treated or untreated samples of Soil III, field
capacity generally decreased in diatomite applied samples. This may be
due to decreases in meso and micro porosity following diatomite applica-
tion. Diatomite application had no significant effect on the moisture con-
tent of soils at wilting point, except the highest dose application in Soil III
(Table 4). However, diatomite application had statistically significant
(Pb0.05) effect on plant available water content in Soils I and II (Table 4).
Table 2
Effects of diatomite on aggregate size distribution and the mean weight diameter of soils (Mean±SD).
Soil Application
rate (v/v)
Aggregate size distribution (mm) (%) Mean weight
diameter (mm)
b0.42 0.42–0.84 0.84–2.00 2.00–6.4 6.4–12.7 N12.7
Soil I Control 37.30±1.28b 12.11±0.14 25.72±0.65 21.72±0.96a 2.73±0.16a 0.42±0.03a 1.74±0.03a
10% 43.88±0.55a 12.40±0.08 23.89±0.10 18.28±0.37b 1.40±0.10b 0.15±0.04b 1.43±0.03b
20% 42.82±0.95a 12.28±0.16 24.92±0.45 18.47±0.58b 1.39±0.08b 0.12±0.03b 1.45±0.02b
30% 41.46±2.27a 12.38±0.34 25.32±1.33 19.30±1.48b 1.41±0.14b 0.13±0.01b 1.49±0.08b
P b0.05 ns ns b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05
Soil II Control 25.75±0.42c 6.66±0.34c 13.67±0.50b 12.28±0.54c 7.25±0.30a 34.39±0.80a 5.84±0.17a
10% 34.19±2.63b 8.75±0.62b 24.33±0.53a 23.93±1.98a 4.77±0.15b 4.03±1.23b 2.44±0.22b
20% 38.90±0.82a 9.54±0.18a 25.01±0.09a 20.97±0.96b 4.30±0.85b 1.28±0.22c 1.95±0.07c
30% 38.02±0.60a 9.63±0.13a 25.32±1.41a 22.80±0.11ab 3.50±0.97b 0.73±0.48c 1.89±0.12c
P b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05
Soil III Control 6.32±0.85c 1.89±0.12 d 4.62±0.24 d 8.08±0.41c 27.87±0.64a 51.22±1.07a 9.60±0.15a
10% 19.42±1.92b 8.55±0.54c 17.91±1.08c 17.89±0.57b 23.86±2.80b 12.37±2.43b 4.95±0.26b
20% 22.40±1.75a 12.98±0.42b 29.60±1.52b 23.67±1.16a 10.73±0.83c 0.62±0.14c 2.65±0.09c
30% 25.12±1.57a 14.30±0.52a 34.04±1.03a 19.38±0.86b 6.61±0.22 d 0.55±0.14c 2.14±0.05 d
P b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05
Values followed by same letter are not statistically different (Pb0.05); ns: not significant.
Table 3
Effects of diatomite on aggregate stability of soils (Mean±SD).
Soil Application
rate (v/v)
Aggregate stability (Fractions, mm) (%)
b0.42 0.42–0.84 0.84–2.00 2.00–6.4 6.4–12.7 N12.7 Mean
Soil I Control 15.34±4.04 d 48.19±5.39c 48.38±7.59c 48.67±2.58c 30.49±1.33c 29.57±4.43 d 36.77±1.06 d
10% 23.70±1.88c 62.35±3.42b 52.68±3.33bc 65.22±1.22b 49.14±7.63b 47.06±4.36c 50.02±0.27c
20% 29.39±2.59b 69.82±4.04ab 59.35±1.74ab 68.16±3.84b 57.36±4.63ab 56.99±7.21b 56.85±0.97b
30% 37.35±2.86a 72.82±4.93a 63.23±2.43a 78.37±4.06a 66.40±3.96a 73.01±2.31a 65.20±1.06a
P b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05
Soil II Control 13.52±2.29c 55.59±7.08 39.97±4.73c 46.49±3.22c 18.95±2.21c 22.56±2.95c 32.85±1.40c
10% 14.97±1.93bc 57.63±2.03 44.37±2.56bc 55.81±3.01b 23.75±2.92bc 27.09±1.39bc 37.27±0.56b
20% 17.57±1.12b 58.52±3.38 47.06±1.45b 57.80±0.77ab 25.31±3.44b 29.43±0.57b 39.28±1.49b
30% 23.38±0.93a 63.74±2.72 55.12±1.42a 62.46±2.63a 38.21±2.34a 37.08±4.96a 46.67±0.62a
P b0.05 ns b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05
Soil III Control 7.88±1.84b 12.83±1.45c 24.73±2.91b 15.19±2.18c 12.59±0.47b 13.84±1.86b 14.51±1.20 d
10% 10.21±0.75b 18.20±3.98b 25.82±3.22b 18.76±1.68b 15.50±1.61b 15.66±2.53b 17.36±0.76c
20% 15.83±1.35a 19.52±2.26b 26.77±1.58b 20.29±1.26b 16.62±1.76b 20.30±0.79a 19.89±0.03b
30% 16.65±0.99a 32.74±2.88a 32.45±3.53a 24.63±1.47a 21.98±3.50a 23.07±1.87a 25.25±0.60a
P b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05
Control 28.04±1.14 d
10% 34.88±0.41c
20% 38.67±0.22b
30% 45.70±0.40a
Values followed by same letter are not statistically different (Pb0.05); ns: not significant.
3E.L. Aksakal et al. / Catena 88 (2012) 1–5

5. Effect of diatomite application on soil permeability coefficient is
not clear. In Soil I, no significant effect of diatomite application on
permeability was obtained, but permeability coefficient only de-
creased about 30% at the highest application rate. This result might
be related to increase in colloidal fraction of sandy soil and clogging
of macropores with diatomite application since more than 50% of di-
atomite applied had a size smaller than 53 μ. In Soil II, permeability
coefficient generally increased with increase in application doses,
but no significant differences were obtained. In contrary, in Soil III,
permeability coefficient generally decreased with increase in applica-
tion doses, but no significant differences were also obtained.
Diatomite application significantly (Pb0.05) decreased air perme-
ability in all soils at all application doses (Table 4). The highest de-
creasing rates were obtained with the highest application doses.
This situation might not only be related to increase in colloidal frac-
tion of soil and clogging of macropores with diatomite application,
but also with the effect of reducing aggregate size (Table 2). Reducing
aggregate size might have reduced pore size thus air flow.
In all soils studied, penetration resistance of soil significantly
(Pb0.05) decreased with increasing in doses. As in all measured soil
properties, the maximum effectiveness was obtained with the highest
dose (30%) of diatomite application. For 10, 20, and 30% doses, the de-
creasing rates of penetration resistance in Soil I as compared to the
control were 17.7, 34.0, and 37.4%, respectively. These values were
55.1, 51.6, and 60.8% for Soil II and 88.7, 96.2, and 97.2% for Soil III.
Within three soils studied, the maximum changes occurred in Soil
III which has clay texture. It may be due to the effect of diatomite ap-
plication on decreasing cohesion forces and protecting crust and large
aggregate formation in clay-textured soils.
4. Conclusion
The results of this study indicated that;
1) Diatomite application limited large aggregate formation in clay-
textured soils by reducing the rate of aggregate size fraction great-
er than N6.4 mm, but it reduces mean weight diameter of sand-
textured soils by increasing the rate of aggregate fractions smaller
than b0.84 mm (Table 2).
2) Diatomite applications significantly (Pb0.05) increased aggregate
stability of all the experimental soils in all aggregate size fractions
at all application doses as compared to the controls. The effect of
diatomite application on aggregate stability was much higher in
soil with higher sand content than that of the soil with higher
clay content.
3) In all three soils studied, bulk density significantly (Pb0.05) de-
creased with increasing application doses.
4) Diatomite application significantly (Pb0.05) increased soil moisture
content at field capacity in Soils I and II which have high amounts of
sand. On contrary, it has no significant effect in Soil III which has
high amounts of clay, although diatomite application to clay rich
soil generally decreased field capacity. This may be due to decreases
in meso and micro porosity following diatomite application. Diato-
mite application had no significant effect on the moisture content
of soils at wilting point. However, diatomite application significantly
(Pb0.05) increased plant available water content in Soils I and II be-
cause of its positive effect on field capacity.
5) Diatomite application had no significant effect on soil permeability
coefficient, but air permeability of soil significantly (Pb0.05) reduced
by diatomite application because of clogging of macro pores.
6) Soil penetration resistance decreased with diatomite application,
especially in clay rich soils.
In conclusion, the results of this study clearly indicated that diato-
mite may be considered as a soil amendment agent for improving soil
physical characteristics. The effectiveness of diatomite application on
measured soil physical characteristics was the highest at the maximum
(30%) application dose, and in soils with higher amounts of sand. More-
over, since its protective effect against crust and large aggregate forma-
tion, and reducing effect on soil penetration resistance in clay textured
soils, diatomite might be an alternative soil amendment agent in soil
tillage practices and seedling.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank to Mumtaz Surensoy for supplying the diatomite
for this study.
References
Aksakal, E.L., Oztas, T., 2010. Effects of PVA, PAM and HA on mean weight diameter and
wet aggregate stability of soils. 5th International Symposium on Agriculture, 15–19
February 2010, Opatija, Croatia, pp. 1201–1205.
Angin, I., Yaganoglu, A.V., 2009. Application of sewage sludge as a soil physical and
chemical amendment. Ekoloji 19 (73), 39–47.
Angin, I., Kose, M., Aslantas, R., 2011. Effect of diatomite on growth of strawberry. Pakistan
Journal of Botany 43 (1), 573–577.
Blake, G.R., Hartge, K.H., 1986. Bulk Density, In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed. : ASA, SSSA, Agronomy No: 9.
Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 363–375.
Carrow, R.N., 1993. Eight questions to ask: evaluating soil and turf conditioners. Golf
Course Management 61 (10), 56–70.
Table 4
Effects of diatomite on bulk density, field capacity, wilting point, available water, permeability coefficient, air permeability and penetration resistance of soils (Mean±SD).
Soil Application
rate (v/v)
Bulk density
(g cm−3
)
Field capacity
(Pv)
Wilting point
(Pv)
Available water
(Pv)
Permeability coefficient
(k) (cm h−1
)
Air permeability
(μ2
)
Penetration resistance
(kg cm−2
)
Soil I Control 1.34±0.03a 19.12±0.93 d 11.12±0.36 8.00±0.79 d 9.11±0.66a 40.18±5.18a 1.47±0.06a
10% 1.27±0.03b 22.48±0.38c 10.97±0.23 11.51±0.16c 10.64±0.92a 31.12±8.68a 1.21±0.23ab
20% 1.21±0.02c 25.66±1.19b 10.94±0.26 14.72±0.98b 10.35±1.08a 11.32±4.93b 0.97±0.14bc
30% 1.16±0.01c 27.49±0.19a 11.04±0.09 16.45±0.13a 6.07±1.03b 6.99±1.85b 0.92±0.10c
P b0.05 b0.05 ns b0.05 b0.05 b0.05 b0.05
Soil II Control 1.23±0.07a 25.83±1.15c 17.71±0.73 8.12±0.42c 1.95±0.19 75.11±16.20a 3.72±0.08a
10% 1.16±0.04a 30.12±0.84b 17.15±0.50 12.97±0.46b 2.10±0.53 47.06±8.86b 1.67±0.21bc
20% 1.08±0.03b 31.58±0.24a 16.93±0.24 14.65±0.27a 2.61±0.31 24.97±3.58c 1.80±0.17b
30% 1.03±0.03b 32.56±0.50a 17.69±0.69 14.87±0.20a 2.63±0.27 12.42±2.02c 1.46±0.20c
P b0.05 b0.05 ns b0.05 ns b0.05 b0.05
Soil III Control 1.01±0.01a 44.12±1.21 29.03±0.19a 15.09±1.04b 3.92±0.13 264.84±10.68a 3.90±0.22a
10% 0.92±0.05b 41.44±1.68 29.21±1.14a 12.23±1.24c 2.95±0.17 240.25±14.22a 0.44±0.09b
20% 0.87±0.02c 42.04±0.91 28.05±0.79a 13.99±0.75bc 3.59±0.63 199.86±28.73b 0.15±0.04c
30% 0.86±0.01c 44.12±1.23 25.37±0.63b 18.75±0.75a 3.85±0.79 144.23±7.46c 0.11±0.01c
P b0.05 ns b0.05 b0.05 ns b0.05 b0.05
Values followed by same letter are not statistically different (Pb0.05); ns: not significant.
4 E.L. Aksakal et al. / Catena 88 (2012) 1–5

6. Cassel, D.K., Nielsen, D.R., 1986. Field Capacity and Available Water Capacity, In: Klute,
A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd
ed. : ASA, SSSA, Agronomy No: 9. Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 901–926.
Corey, A.T., 1986. Air Permeability, In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1,
Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed. : ASA, SSSA, Agronomy No: 9. Madison,
Wisconsin, pp. 1121–1137.
Correa, R.S., White, R.E., Weatherley, A.J., 2006. Risk of nitrate leaching from two soils
amended with biosolids. Water Resources 33 (4), 453–462.
Gascó, G., Lobo, M.C., Guerrero, F., 2005. Land application of sewage sludge: a soil columns
study. Water SA 31 (3), 309–318.
Gee, G.W., Bauder, J.W., 1986. Particle-Size Analysis, In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed. : ASA, SSSA, Agronomy
No: 9. Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 383–441.
Githinji, L.J.M., Dane, J.H., Walker, R.H., 2010. Physical and hydraulic properties of inorganic
amendments and modeling their effects on water movement in sand-based root
zones. Irrigation Science. doi:10.1007/s00271-010-0218-4.
Kemper, W.D., Rosenau, R.C., 1986. Aggregate Stability and Size Distribution, In: Klute,
A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd
ed. : ASA, SSSA, Agronomy No: 9. Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 425–442.
Khraisheh, M.A.M., Al-degs, Y.S., Mcminn, W.A.M., 2004. Remediation of wastewater
containing heavy metals using raw and modified diatomite. Chemical Engineering
Journal 99, 177–184.
Klute, A., Dirksen, C., 1986. Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity: Laboratory Methods,
In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical
Methods, 2nd ed. : ASA, SSSA, Agronomy No: 9. Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 687–734.
Li, D., Joo, Y.K., Christians, N.E., Minner, D.D., 2000. Inorganic soil amendment effects on
sand-based sports turf media. Crop Science 40 (4), 1121–1125.
McGrath, S.P., Zhao, F.J., Dunham, S.J., Crosland, A.R., Coleman, K., 2000. Long-term
changes in extractability and bioavailability of zinc and cadmium after sludge ap-
plication. Journal of Environmental Quality 29, 875–883.
McLean, E.O., 1982. Soil pH and Lime Requirement, In: Page, A.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed. : ASA, SSSA,
Agronomy No: 9. Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 199–224.
Nelson, R.E., 1982. Carbonate and Gypsum, In: Page, A.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed. : ASA, SSSA, Agronomy
No: 9. Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 181–197.
Nelson, D.W., Sommers, L.E., 1982. Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter, In:
Page, A.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties,
2nd ed. : ASA, SSSA, Agronomy No: 9. Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 539–579.
Oztas, T., Sonmez, K., Canbolat, M.Y., 1999. Strength of individual soil aggregates
against crushing forces I. Influence of aggregate characteristics. Turkish Journal of
Agriculture and Forestry 23, 567–572.
Piccolo, A., Pietramellara, G., Mbagwu, J.S.C., 1997. Use of humic substances as soil con-
ditioners to increase aggregate stability. Geoderma 75, 267–277.
Rhoades, J.D., 1982a. Soluble Salts, In: Page, A.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2,
Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed. : ASA, SSSA, Agronomy No: 9.
Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 167–179.
Rhoades, J.D., 1982b. Cation Exchange Capacity, In: Page, A.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed. : ASA, SSSA,
Agronomy No: 9. Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 149–165.
Soil Survey Staff, 1992. Keys to soil taxonomy, SMSS Technical Monograph No: 19, 5th
ed. Pocahontas Press Inc., Blacksburg, VA.
Sojka, R.E., Lentz, R.D., 1997. Reducing furrow irrigation erosion with polyacrylamide
(PAM). Journal of Production Agriculture 10 (1), 47–52.
SPSS Inc., 2004. SPSS®
13.0 Base User's Guide. Chicago, IL.
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 2008. USGS Minerals Information — Diatomite.
Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/diatomite/#pubs.
Vaca-Paulín, R., Esteller-Alberich, M.V., Lugo-de la Fuente, J., Zavaleta-Mancera, H.A.,
2006. Effect of sewage sludge or compost on the sorption and distribution of copper
and cadmium in soil. Waste Management 26, 71–81.
Wallace, A., Terry, R.E., 1998. Handbook of soil conditioners: substances that enhance
the physical properties of soil. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Wu, J., Yang, Y.S., Lin, J., 2005. Advanced tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater
using raw and modified diatomite. Journal of Hazardous Materials B127, 196–203.
Zhao, B.Z., Xu, F.A., 1995. Improvement of soil physical properties with soil conditioners.
Pedosphere 5 (4), 363–370.
5E.L. Aksakal et al. / Catena 88 (2012) 1–5
View publication statsView publication stats