Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4, 1–16, Ljubljana 2023 doi:10.14720/aas.2023.119.4.15748 Original research article / izvirni znanstveni članek Influence of mulches on soil moisture and water infiltration in the toma- to crop Imerina TANKEUOO KOPA 1, 2 , Mohamed MEDDI 1 , Abdelhadi AMMARI 1 Received August 23, 2023; accepted November 22, 2023. Delo je prispelo 23. avgusta 2023, sprejeto 22. novembra 2023 1 National Higher School of Hydraulics (ENSH), Water and Environmental Engineering Laboratory (GEE), Blida, Algeria 2 Corresponding author, e-mail: i.tankeuookopa@ensh.dz Influence of mulches on soil moisture and water infiltration in the tomato crop Abstract: Soil moisture is a key parameter of soil monitor- ing for observation of vegetation growth, predicting crop pro- duction, and improving water resource management. In this study, the objective is to compare the evolution of soil mois- ture in different mulches to determine the best mulch and its characteristics of infiltration in the soil. The experiment was conducted during the summer season in July-September 2022 on four different mulches (wood chips, sawdust, straw, mix- ture), and control at the experimental plot of Blida. The results showed that silt is the main matrix of the soil. The analysis of infiltration data identified modified Kostiakov as the best mod- el of the study site, whose period of plant growth represents the phase during which we have a better infiltration under the mixture. The application of the mulch changes the moisture mainly at 15 cm and the conductivity at 10 cm. In addition, the mixture is the best mulch to conserve moisture in the soil while reducing the frequency of irrigation. The correlation between soil moisture and conductivity was overall very good. This was due to the effect of mulch, soil texture, plant root development, and capillary rise. Key words: tomatoes, mulching, soil moisture, infiltra- tion, soil electrical conductivity Vpliv mulčenja na vlažnost tal in infiltracijo vode v nasadu paradižnika Izvleček: Vlažnost tal je glavni parameter pri spremljanju lastnosti tal pri opazovanju rasti, napovedovanju pridelka in pri izboljševanju upravljanja z vodnimi viri. Predmet te raziskave je bil primerjati razvoj vlažnosti tal pri različnih načinih mulče- nja z namenom določiti najboljši način mulčenja za infiltracijo vode v tla. Poskus je potekal v poletni sezoni od julija do sep- tembra 2022 s štirimi načini mulčenja (lesni sekanci, žagovina, slama, mešanica) in kontrolo na poskusnem polju v Blidi, Al- žirija. Rezultati so pokazali, da je bil kremenčev drobir glavna sestavina anorganskega dela tal. Analiza podatkov o infiltraciji vode je pokazala, da se je izkazal spremenjen Kostiakov model kot najboljši za preučevanje tal, v katerem predstavlja obdobje rasti rastlin fazo, v kateri je infiltracija vode v tla najboljša pri mulčenju z mešanico. Uporaba mulčenja spreminja vlažnost tal v glavnem na globini 15 cm in prevodnost tal na globini 10 cm. Dodatno je mešanica materialov za mulčenje najboljša, ker ohranja vlažnost tal in hkrati zmanjšuje pogostost namakanja. Korelacija med vlažnostjo in prevodnostjo tal je bila nasplošno zelo dobra kar je bilo posledica mulčenja, teksture tal, razvoja korenin in kapilarnega dviga. Ključne besede: paradižnik, mulčenje, vlažnost tal, infil- tracija, električna prevodnost tal Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 2 I. TANKEUOO KOPA et al. 1 INTRODUCTION One of the fundamental soil parameters affecting the life of plants, animals, and microorganisms is soil moisture (Safari et al., 2021). Commonly defined as the amount of water present in the unsaturated zone, it is a key element for predicting agricultural production and improving water resource management. Its measurement in precision agriculture is an essential agronomic com- ponent for monitoring crop growth (Goel et al., 2020). Due to the importance of the role played by soil mois- ture, some scientists have developed different instrumen- tation observation methods, including the dialectical method by time domain reflectometry (TDR). Indeed, it is a method that cannot be ignored for the quality, ease of use, and accuracy of its measurements (Freire et al., 2020). Other researchers have instead focused on the is- sue of water conservation in the soil, establishing differ- ent techniques, including mulching (Stelli et al., 2018). An old practice (Jacks et al., 1955), consists of covering the soil surface with other materials, called “mulch” (Al- metwally et al., 2019; Telkar et al., 2017). They can be applied to perennial or seasonal crops to: conserve wa- ter (Zegada-Lizarazu and Berliner, 2011), improve crop performance and wind control (Sharma et al., 2023; Sim- sek et al., 2017), increase plant health and vitality (Stelli et al., 2018), improve the action of microorganisms in the soil, and increase soil organic matter (Sharma et al., 2023; Simsek et al., 2017). According to an experiment conducted on different organic and inorganic mulches (Safari et al., 2021), the ideal depth is 15 cm with an in- crease of 2 to 5 % compared to bare soil (control). Or- ganic materials are the most recommended as they can actively promote soil desalination and assist in the deg- radation of pesticides and other pollutants (Telkar et al., 2017). Several studies have been conducted in semi-arid and arid areas on the effects of mulching in conserving soil moisture (Almetwally et al., 2019; Mkhabela et al., 2019; Stelli et al., 2018; Simsek et al., 2017; Telkar et al., 2017) with interesting results. Some have also tested the effects of mulching on specific crops, such as tomatoes. It’s a crop that is widely cultivated for its fruits that are consumed fresh or processed (Chaux and Foury, 1994). Currently, it represents the most cultivated and processed crop in the world (Sharma et al., 2023). Tomatoes play a major role in Algeria’s agricultural economy. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR), nearly 33,000 hectares of land are devoted to this crop (horticultural and industrial), with an aver- age production of 11 million quintals and average yields of around 311 Qx ha -1 (MADR, 2009 in Tarchag, 2020, MADR, 2011 in Amichi et al., 2015). However, according to Sharma et al. (2023), water is one of the elements that directly affects tomato productivity. In addition to effi- cient use of available soil moisture, weed control, spacing, timing of planting, and judicious application of manure and fertilizer are all aspects that influence the success of tomato production (Lamont, 2005). The Mitidja, which is heavily dominated by vegetable crops and arboriculture, is one of the most fertile plains in Algeria (Meddi et al., 2013). However, in recent years, this plain is facing a de- cline in the water table of at least 40 m in some areas. This phenomenon is mainly due to poor water management, overexploitation of the water table by various industries, and drought episodes combined with the importance of irrigated areas (Djouda-Hallah, 2014). Another impor- tant process to consider in agriculture is infiltration, as it is one of the important components of the soil water balance in semi-arid areas (Liao et al., 2021). Further- more, researchers (Oku and Aiyelari, 2011) have shown that soil infiltration properties can be quantified by fit- ting field infiltration data to model infiltration. Similarly, detailed knowledge of soil infiltration rates and charac- teristics can increase irrigation water use efficiency and reduce water losses (Haghiabi et al., 2011; Xing et al., 2017). To this end, scientists (Liao et al., 2021; Farid et al., 2019; Vand et al., 2018, Furman et al., 2006; Mishra et al., 2003) have developed several models to determine the infiltration rate and its characteristics. The most commonly used are Philips, Kostiakov, modified Kostiakov, and Horton because of their perfor- mance and efficiency. However, despite all the advantages mentioned, mulching in general and organic mulching in particular is not a common practice in agricultural crops in Algeria. However, this technique can be a de- sign solution to the great theme that is the conservation of moisture to the maximum and with efficiency in the soil, without destructuring and impoverishing it. That is why we studied the effects of mulching on soil moisture and infiltration of the soil in the cultivation of tomatoes. The specific objectives were to (1) characterize the soil of the site where tomato plants were planted; (2) determine the best infiltration model that best fits the study area; (3) study the effects of mulching on soil electrical conductiv- ity, soil moisture retention and identify the best mulch among those studied as well as its ideal depth. 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 EXPERIMENTAL SITE The experiments were carried out in the Mitidja plain, at the experimental site of the National Higher School of Hydraulics (ENSH) of Blida, Algeria (36°30’31’’ N, 2°53’15’’ E, 110 m) (Fig. 1), during the period from Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 3 Influence of mulches on soil moisture and water infiltration in the tomato crop July to September 2022. According to Laribi et al. (2023), this plain extends today over four Wilayas (Blida, Tipaza, Bourmedès and Algiers), with an average annual tem- perature of 18 °C and a rainfall between 600 mm and 900 mm/year. According to this author, this plain is located in the bioclimatic Mediterranean subhumid area with mild winters. An agro-meteorological station was installed in the plot to obtain data on rainfall, air and soil surface temperature, wind speed, solar radiation and humidity. The data processing for the period July-September 2022 shows that the range of air temperatures varies from 25.25 °C (September) to 50.77 °C (August). On the other hand, on the surface of the ground, the range tempera- ture is about 28.00 °C (September)–54.45 °C (August). The average relative humidity is 64.71 % with a minimum of 33.13 % and a maximum of 75.41 %; solar radiation is 247.70 W m - ², wind speed is 2.54 m s -1 and evapotran- spiration is 129.95 mm/day. There was no precipitation during this period. 2.2 SITE DESIGN At this site, five plots of 4 m² were built (Fig. 2) (i.e. a total area of 40 m² with the respective additions of coarse (wood chips) and fine (sawdust) white wood bark mulch, wheat straw (cut to about 5 cm), the mixture of the first three mulches (with the same quantity of each mulch), and bare soil (here referred to as the control). The choice of mulches was based on the availability of inexpensive, abundant, and effective local materials. To monitor moisture until fruiting, 3-week-old ‘Bahadja F1’ hybrid tomato plants were planted in these plots. The dis- tance between the ramps was 50 cm and 40 cm for the to- mato plants and drippers, respectively. Each dripper was placed at the base of each plant and was self-regulating. In total, there were 12 tomato plants and 12 drippers per plot. The plants were irrigated with the surface drip sys- tem according to their needs at one-hour (1h) intervals in the evening. For the irrigation control, in addition to the Figure 1: Location map of Mitidja plain Figure 2: Design of the experimental setup and installation of mulch on tomato plants Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 4 I. TANKEUOO KOPA et al. literature, we used the template provided by the company responsible for the TDR 150 device, which visualizes the delineation of the moisture at the wilting point (WP) and the field capacity (FC) for each soil type. During this ir- rigation period, the average flow rate used was 7.72 l h -1 . 2.3 SOIL SAMPLING The soils on which the tomato plants were planted were first physically analyzed to determine soil texture and bulk density. Five samples of disturbed soil, one per plot, were taken with a hand auger from 0 to 30 cm deep. Then five more undisturbed samples (always at the same points and depth) were taken with special samplers (cylinders). The entire sample collection was sent to the Agroecology Laboratory of the National Higher School of Hydraulics (ENSH) for analysis. The international method of Robinson (1949) was used to determine the different proportions of sands, clays, and silts of the re- worked samples. Also, the texture of each soil was de- termined through its texture diagram. To determine the bulk density of each sample, a balance was used for wet and dry weighing, and an oven at 105 °C was used to dry the samples. 2.4 INFILTRATION MEASUREMENT The double ring infiltrometer with an outer diam- eter of 32 cm and an inner diameter of 11 cm was in- stalled in the ground to measure the infiltration rate in the field. During our fieldwork, this device was driven into the ground at a depth of 5 cm on a flat surface. The float was placed inside the inner ring to read the amount of water infiltrating into the soil. Measurements were taken at one-minute intervals. Infiltration measurements were taken before sowing tomato plants on bare soil in each plot, during the period of tomato plant growth un- der mulch, and at the end of crop growth at each soil sampling point. The rest of the experiment continued until the equilibrium infiltration rate was reached. After reaching this equilibrium infiltration rate (mm min -1 ) in the soil, the experiment was stopped. This experiment was then repeated three times per plot. 2.5 DETERMINATION OF PARAMETERS OF DIF- FERENT INFILTRATION MODELS Philip, Kostiakov, and modified Kostiakov are the three models used in the study due to their popularity, effectiveness, and the type of soil present in the study area (Kostiakov, 1932; Philip, 1957). Experimental field data were used to evaluate these infiltration models and to obtain numerical values of the model hydraulic pa- rameters. The hydraulic parameters of each model were determined using EXCEL software. The equations used for each model are described below. - Philips model This model is one of the physical models com- monly used to estimate infiltration. Based on Darcy’s law and the law of conservation of mass (Vand et al., 2018, Philips, 1957), it has the equation: (2.1) Where: f(t) is the infiltration rate at time t, S is the soil sorptivity, K is the hydraulic conductivity of the soil at saturation, and t is the time since infiltration began. In this study, to estimate the values of the parameters S and K, the infiltration rate data (mm min -1 ) were fitted as a function of time transformed by least squares regression for all data obtained before sowing, during growth and at the end of fruiting at the five points. - Kostiakov model Kostiakov is a model based on the collection of ex- perimental data obtained in the field, as well as in the laboratory. As an empirical model, it allows estimating the infiltration rate according to the equation: (2.2) Where f(t) is the infiltration rate at time t; A and B are the parameters of the unknown equation represent- ing the infiltration characteristics of the soil, with A the initial measurement of infiltration rate and soil structural condition, and B the stability index of the soil structure, t the time. To determine its parameters A and B, the loga- rithms (ln) of the infiltration measurements f(t) and time (t) were taken. - Modified Kostiakov model Also known as Kostiakov-Lewis or Mezencev it is commonly used in the infiltration function for surface irrigation applications (Haverkamp et al., 1988, Furman et al., 2006). Its equation is as follows: (2.3) Where F(t) is the cumulative infiltration rate as a function of time; A and B are the hydraulic parameters of the equation, t is time, and fc is the stable infiltration rate. As with Kostiakov, the logarithms (ln) of the infiltration f(t) and time (t) measurements were taken to determine the A and B parameters. Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 5 Influence of mulches on soil moisture and water infiltration in the tomato crop 2.6 SELECTION OF THE INFILTRATION MODEL ACCORDING TO PERFORMANCE CRITERIA The comparison between the simulated and meas- ured field data was performed according to the selected performance criteria to determine the best - fitting mod- el in the range. The different criteria selected were based on their popularity and efficiency. These include, among others : - Determination Coefficient (R²) (2.4) - The Mean Square Error (RMSE) (2.5) - Nash and Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NASH) (2.6) - Error Index (PBIAS) (2.7) where n is the number of observations, x i is the ob- served infiltration depth, y i is the simulated infiltration depth and is the mean of observed data The best-fitting model was selected based on the maximum of the coefficient of determination R², Nash; the minimum of the root mean square error (RMSE) and the prediction error index (PBIAS), as established by Mo- riasi et al. (2007). 2.7 MEASUREMENT OF MOISTURE AND ELEC- TRICAL CONDUCTIVITY IN THE SOIL The measurement of the amount of water in the soil was carried out throughout the period from the sowing of the tomato plants to the fruiting stage in each of the plots. It was carried out from July to September 2022. In our study, the TDR 150 was used because of its afford- ability, reliability, accuracy and ease of use. What’s spe- cial about this device is that it can measure soil moisture, soil electrical conductivity and soil temperature at the same depth and on the same time scale. For this study, we considered only the first two parameters, because of their importance in irrigation and nutrient management. In the field, its spikes were inserted at 5 cm, 10 cm, 15 cm and 20 cm depths next to the tomato plants in each plot. Measurements were taken daily, three repetitions per plot between 4–8 p.m. and reported on data sheets. The data obtained was then processed in Excel software to produce graphs of the evolution of humidity and elec- trical conductivity at different depths. 3 RESULTS 3.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SOIL The granulometric analysis by sedimentometry car- ried out according to the method of Robinson (1949) on five (05) samples, made it possible to obtain the percent- ages of sand (% S), silt (% L), and clay (% A) particles at a depth of 30 cm (Tab. 1). Observation of this table shows that silt is the main matrix of these soils, whose main texture is fine silty. The values of apparent density are between 1.24 and 1.67 g cm -3 with an average of 1.33 g cm -3 . The water holding capacity varies from 32 to 38 % depending on soil type, wilting point varies from 14 to 17 %, and field capacity varies from 32 to 38 %. Table 1: Physical analysis of soil samples at 30 cm depth Samples Sand % Clay % Silt % Textural Class Bulk density WP (%) FC (%) SWC (%) Wood chips 41.7 10.3 49 Loam-Silty Loam-Silty sand 1.24 14 35 35 Sawdust 19.9 8.5 71.5 Silty loam 1.3 17 38 38 Wheat straw 38.1 11 52 Silty loam-loam 1.24 15 36 36 Mixture 21.9 7 70.5 Silty loam 1.18 17 38 38 Control 17.5 6 76.3 Silty loam 1.67 17 38 38 Note: WP = wilting point, FC = field capacity and SWC = Soil water capacity. The value of WP , FC and SWC were given by the company responsible for the TDR 150 device and the granulometric analysis was performed at the ENSH pedology laboratory Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 6 I. TANKEUOO KOPA et al. 3.2 COMPARISON OF INFILTRATION RATES Figure 3 shows the evolution of the infiltration rate observed in the field in each mulch and in the control before sowing, during the growth and after the ripening of the tomato plants. The general appreciation of these graphs highlights the rapidity of water infiltration into the soil during plant growth in all mulches and bare soil (control). However, a closer look at the sawdust graph shows that the infiltration rate is slightly higher after the fruiting phase. In short, it evolves through the different phases. Based on this observation, we can deduce that this mulch improves the humidity of the soil over time, unlike other mulches. In fact, after the growth and fruiting phase, the soil water infiltration behavior of other mulches tends to be similar to that obtained during the pre-sowing phase of tomato plants. This behavior is best illustrated in the mixture. With this in mind, factors such as soil plow- ing, mulch decomposition and root system development need to be taken into consideration to explain the evolu- tion of the humidity. 3.3 SELECTION OF THE BEST MODEL FOR THE STUDY SITE The identification of the best infiltration model (Table 2) followed the determination of the hydraulic parameters (Table 2a) and the evaluation of the perfor- mance criteria (Table 2b). 3.3.1 Determination of the hydraulic parameters of each model in each mulch before sowing, dur- ing growth and after fruiting of tomato plants Table 2a shows the hydraulic parameters of each model for each mulch before sowing, during growth, and after maturation of the tomato crop. From the annota- tion of these dashboards, it can be seen that high simu- lated hydraulic conductivity values are recorded for each model in all three phases during the plant development phase. The mixture also records very high values during this phase. 3.3.2 Evaluation of performance criteria for Philip, Kostiakov and modified Kostiakov models Table 2b shows the different performance criteria used to determine the best model under each mulch in the study area. Looking at the values obtained from the different performance criteria for different models in each mulch, we note that the modified Kostiakov is the best model in the study area. We also note that the Philip model has the lowest PBIAS value, but unlike Kostiakov, very high RMSE values were found. Overall, these three models are applicable in the area, although modified Ko- stiakov is the best of the three. 3.4 EFFECT OF MULCH ON SOIL ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY Daily, soil electrical conductivity data were re- corded in each mulch at different depths (Fig. 4). From the general shape of these curves, it can be seen that the highest conductivity values are recorded at 10 cm depth and lower at 5 cm depth at each mulch. However, a dif- ference is observed first in wood chip and sawdust be- tween 08/22/2022 - 01/09/2022, then in control between 16/09/2022 - 26/09/2022, where there is a high peak at 5 cm depth, unlike the rest of the depths. The individual observation of each figure shows that high conductivity rates are recorded within: - treatments (wood chips, sawdust, straw, and mix- ture) between 08/22/2022-01/09/2022 and between 11/09/2022-21/09/2022 - bare soil (control) between 27/08/2022-06/09/2022 and between 16/09/2022-26/09/2022 The comparative study of the variation of the elec- trical conductivity of the soil shows overall very high rates of conductivity between 17/08/2022-06/09/2022. The overview of Table 3 notices a slightly more pro- nounced increase in conductivity at 10 cm depth (0.44 µS cm -1 ). The following classification can be made: 10 cm (0.44 µS cm -1 ) > 15 cm (0.42 µS cm -1 ) > 20 cm (0.39 µS cm -1 ) > 5 cm (0.27 µS cm -1 . Also, a more pronounced in- crease in conductivity at the level of wood chips (0.41 µS cm -1 ), followed by sawdust (0.37 µS cm -1 ), straw (0.37 µS cm -1 ), control (0.38 µS cm -1 ), mixture (0.36 µS cm -1 ). The difference between the mulches and the control varied from 0.1 to 0.3 µS cm -1 . The standard deviation values for the different mulches at each depth are less than 3 %. The very low deviations indicate that the data points are close to the mean. Showing that the data are homogeneous. 3.5 EFFECT OF MULCH ON SOIL MOISTURE An overview of the various graphs at 5 cm, 10 cm, 15 cm and 20 cm depth (Fig.5) in each mulch shows that sawdust has a high water content at almost all soil depths, Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 7 Influence of mulches on soil moisture and water infiltration in the tomato crop Figure 3: Comparison of infiltration rate (mm h -1 ) observed before seeding tomato plants (blue color), during plant growth (or- ange color) and after fruiting tomatoes (green color) in the wood chip, sawdust, wheat straw, mixture and control Table 2a: Hydraulic parameters of different models before sowing tomato plants, during tomato plant growth and after maturation of tomato plants Plot Period P K KM     S (mm h -1 ) K (mm h -1 ) M A (mm h -1 ) B M A (mm h -1 ) B M Wood chips Before 9.27 80.07 87.65 82.47 0.07 87.65 0.63 0.85 1.46 During 61.73 87.12 146.03 106.87 0.26 146.03 4.19 0.64 2.43 After 21.35 102.16 120.77 108.34 0.11 120.77 1.41 0.75 2.01 Sawdust Before 53.13 105.47 153.45 124.22 0.2 153.45 3.68 0.64 2.55 During 53.54 96.93 155.34 111.34 0.23 155.34 3.59 0.63 2.58 After 60.81 136.7 204.57 148.65 0.21 204.57 3.98 0.66 3.4 Wheat straw Before 47.9 68.78 108.4 87.94 0.24 108.4 3.39 0.62 1.8 During 54.62 103.57 155.69 122.01 0.21 155.69 3.81 0.62 2.59 After 28.73 97.16 122.38 105.96 0.15 122.38 1.93 0.7 2.03 Mixture Before 41.03 64.75 104.57 82.83 0.19 104.57 3.18 0.48 1.74 During 44.02 164.69 214.4 173.55 0.14 214.4 2.95 0.67 3.57 After 25.05 75.54 98.52 85.52 0.13 98.52 1.84 0.57 1.64 Control Before 59.07 69.5 122.46 93.11 0.26 122.46 4.23 0.58 2.04 During 59.07 69.5 122.46 93.11 0.26 122.46 4.23 0.58 2.04 After 24.83 18.38 34.56 31.05 0.27 34.56 2.11 0.5 0.57 Min   0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Max   0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Mean   42.94 89.35 130.08 103.80 0.20 130.08 3.01 0.63 2.16 Note. S= Sorptivity (mm h -1 ); K= parameter related to saturated hydraulic conductivity (mm h -1 ); A and B = hydraulics parameters with A measure- ment initial infiltration (mm h -1 ) and B is index evaluated stability; P= Philip model; K= Kostiakov model; KM= Modified Kostiakov model Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 8 I. TANKEUOO KOPA et al. Table 2b: Performance criteria and selection of the best model in each mulch (chip, sawdust, wheat straw, mixture) and control Plot Soil Texture Period R² NASH RMSE PBIAIS Best model       P K KM P K KM P K KM P K KM   Wood chips L-Ls Before 0.48 0.70 0.83 0.48 0.69 0.99 5.27 4.03 1.03 0.00 8.33 -13.33 Modified Kostiakov During 0.90 0.92 0.96 0.90 0.94 0.99 12.27 8.96 2.21 0.00 3.92 -19.35 After 0.70 0.81 0.94 0.70 0.82 0.99 7.82 6.07 1.24 0.00 12.47 -9.57 Sawdust lf Before 0.90 0.91 0.98 0.90 0.94 0.99 9.83 7.82 1.61 0.00 15.42 -12.91 Modified Kostiakov During 0.91 0.90 0.98 0.91 0.93 0.99 10.55 9.36 1.11 0.00 23.28 -7.23 After 0.87 0.91 0.96 0.87 0.92 0.99 15.05 11.63 1.75 0.00 17.53 -13.29 Wheat straw lf Before 0.91 0.94 0.97 0.91 0.96 0.99 7.88 5.39 1.93 0.00 3.36 -17.24 Modified Kostiakov During 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.94 0.99 9.61 7.85 1.37 0.00 17.35 -12.69 After 0.81 0.91 0.94 0.81 0.92 0.99 7.95 5.01 1.45 0.00 5.80 -16.70 Mixture lf Before 0.94 0.86 0.99 0.94 0.84 0.99 5.72 10.13 0.28 0.00 45.45 -2.01 Modified Kostiakov During 0.79 0.79 0.98 0.79 0.79 0.99 14.42 14.51 0.82 0.00 42.23 -0.30 After 0.95 0.90 0.99 0.95 0.87 0.99 3.24 5.27 0.30 0.00 12.66 -2.04 Control lf Before 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.99 7.69 6.96 1.63 0.00 12.22 -12.06 Modified Kostiakov During 0.95 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.99 7.69 6.96 1.63 0.00 12.22 -12.06 After 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.99 2.17 2.88 1.06 0.00 7.27 -6.60 Mean     0.86 0.89 0.96 0.86 0.89 0.99 8.48 7.52 1.30 0.00 15.97 -10.49   Min     0.48 0.70 0.83 0.48 0.69 0.99 2.17 2.88 0.28 0.00 3.36 -19.35   Max     0.96 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.96 0.99 15.05 14.51 2.21 0.00 45.45 -0.30   Note. P = Philip model; K = Kostiakov model; KM = Modified Kostiakov model Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 9 Influence of mulches on soil moisture and water infiltration in the tomato crop while wood chips have a lower water content. However, at a depth of 20 cm, the opposite phenomenon is ob- served. Wood chips retain more moisture than sawdust. The moisture data (Fig. 5) obtained on each mulch before and after irrigation allowed us to establish an existing relationship between the parameters: irriga- tion, moisture, mulch and actual evapotranspiration. The evapotranspiration calculated with the Pennan- Montheih formula was corrected with the crop coef- ficients of tomato to have plot - specific values. After irrigation under different mulches, the observation is mentioned in the level: - of the wood chips of great moisture conserva- tion in the soil between the end of August - beginning of September (25/08/2022-09/09/2022), that is 15 days of maximum retention. The observation of the graph shows a particular retention of only three days, justified by a strong increase in real evapotranspiration during this pe- riod. In addition, nine irrigation cycles were carried out during the crop. - of sawdust of a great retention of moisture in the soil of maximum 13 days at the beginning of the growth and flowering stage of the plant (11/07/2022-04/08/2022). Observation of this graph also identifies eight rounds of irrigation during the development of the plant. - of the straw, the great retention was identified Table 3: Averages and standard deviations of soil conductivity retained for different mulches (wood chips, sawdust, wheat straw, mixture) and control at 5 cm, 10 cm, 15 cm and 20 cm depths Mulches Averages and standard deviations of soil conductivity (µS cm -1 ) 5 cm 10 cm 15 cm 20 cm Mean (%) SD (%) Wood chips 0.24 0.5 0.46 0.43 0.41 0.10 Sawdust 0.32 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.03 Wheat straw 0.26 0.48 0.41 0.34 0.37 0.08 Mixture 0.2 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.36 0.10 Control 0.31 0.44 0.44 0.35 0.38 0.06 Mean (%) 0.27 0.44 0.42 0.39 SD (%) 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 Note: SD = standard deviation, Mean = average of soil conductivity in different mulches and depths Figure 4: Variation in soil conductivity (µS cm -1 ) each daily of wood chips (blue color), sawdust (orange color), wheat straw (gray color), mixture (yellow color) and control (green color) at 5 cm, 10 cm, 15 cm and 20 cm depth Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 10 I. TANKEUOO KOPA et al. in the second cycle of the plant between 23/07/2022- 01/08/2022 which is a maximum of 13 days of conserva- tion. During the growth of the plant, the observation of the graph shows eight rounds of irrigation as the sawdust. - of the mixture, conservation of humidity in the soil between 20/07/2022-10/08/2022 that is to say a max- imum of 22 days. On the graph, we can also see that dur- ing the period of growth of the plant, seven rounds of irrigation were carried out. - of the control, a maximum of 13 days between 07/29/2022-10/08/2022. Also on the graph, we see that during the growth the plants were irrigated 10 times. Considering the average moisture content data in Table 4, the following classification by the average mois- ture content obtained in percentages is sawdust (35.6 %) > straw (34.3 %) > mixture (33.9 %) > control (33.8 %) > wood chips (33.7 %). We also note that 15 cm (39.7 %) is the depth at which we record a very high rate of water storage in the soil. In the same table, we observe a slightly significant difference in low water retention in wheat Figure 5: Effects of wood chips, sawdust, wheat straw, mixture, control on moisture at 5 cm; 10 cm; 15 cm and 20 cm depth each daily; relationship between soil moisture (%), irrigation (mm) and reel evapotranspiration (ETR) in mm/day to different mulches and control. The vertical bars represent plant growth stages; the horizontal bars represent the number of days (d) of moisture re- tention in the soil after each irrigation round and the small histograms represents the number of irrigated turns for each treatment Table 4: Averages, and standard deviations soil moisture retained for different treatments (wood chips, sawdust, wheat straw, mixture and control) at 5cm, 10cm, 15cm and 20cm depths Mulches Averages and standard deviation of soil moisture (%) Depths 5 cm 10 cm 15 cm 20 cm Mean (%) SD (%) Wood chips 29.6 31.6 39 34.5 33.7 3.5 Sawdust 34.3 34.5 40.4 33.1 35.6 2.8 Wheat straw 32.4 32.5 40.3 32.1 34.3 3.5 Mixture 29.3 31.5 39.6 34.9 33.9 3.9 Control 31.6 31.4 39.4 33 33.8 3.3 Mean (%) 31.4 32.3 39.7 33.5 SD (%) 1.8 1.2 0.5 1.0 Note: SD = standard deviation, Mean = average of soil moisture in different mulches and depths Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 11 Influence of mulches on soil moisture and water infiltration in the tomato crop straw and the control; being of the order of 0.3 % (be- tween 20 cm and 5 cm depth) and 0.2 % (between 10 cm and 5 cm depth), respectively. Similarly, indicating the homogeneity of the data, the standard deviation values are low (less than 8 %). If we make a correlation between the averages of the values of electrical conductivity of the soil and humidity at different depths in different mulches (Tab.5), we obtain good results of coefficient of determination going from 0.70 to 0.95 in almost all the depths. 4 DISCUSSION The results of the particle size analysis showed that silt is the main matrix of the soils of the different plots, whose main texture is fine silt. These results are consist- ent with those obtained by Ecrement and Seghir (1971) in the region. According to Skhiri (2019), the average bulk density within the silty soils is 1.3 g cm -3 . This result is consistent with that obtained in the study area, which is 1.33 g cm -3 . The general observation of the graphs showing the evolution of the infiltration rate observed in the field in each mulch and bare soil, before sowing, during the growth and after the ripening of the tomato plants, allows us to see that the infiltration of water into the soil is more rapid during the period of plant growth. This phenomenon is observed in all the mulches and in the bare soil (control). This can be explained, on the one hand, by the mulching of the soil surface and, on the other hand, by the plowing of the soil before sowing, in addition to the root development of the plant during this period. Several researchers (Liao et al., 2021, Farid et al., 2019) indicate that mulching would facilitate infiltration after irrigation or very heavy rainfall. The hydraulic pa- rameters of each model observed in each mulch before sowing, during growth and after ripening of the tomato crop show that high values of simulated hydraulic con- ductivity are recorded for each model during the three phases of plant development. The mixture, which is the mulch, records the highest values. Some researchers at- tribute this increase to the mulching of the soil surface. They consider that mulching improves, if not increases, the rate of hydraulic conductivity in the soil (Mkhabela et al., 2019; Stelli et al., 2018, Simsek et al., 2017). As for the high values of the mixture, according to Bear (1972), they are justified by the very high ability of the soil under this mulch to let water through, unlike other mulches. Based on the evaluation of the selected performance criteria, the modified Kostiakov emerged as the best model in the study area. According to several researchers (Niyazi et al., 2022; Vand et al., 2018; Yuemei et al., 2008), the best model is the one with minimum RMSE and PBIAS, maximum R² and NASH. In our study, modified Kostia- kov is the best because it has: R² equal to 0.996; Nash equal to 0.99997; RMSE equal to 0.279 and PBIAS equal to -19.35. Overall, these three models are applicable in the field, with the best being the modified Kostiakov. This result is similar to that obtained by Smerdon et al. (1988). These researchers have shown that modified Kostiakov is one of the best models to apply in surface irrigation. Thus, from these performance criteria, we can establish the following ranking: modified Kostiakov > Kostiakov≥ Philip. From the research conducted by Zolfaghari et al. (2012) on seven infiltration models, it is found that mod- ified Kostiakov and Kostiakov are the two models with better ranking among all models. Mirzaee et al., (2014) on the one hand state that modified Kostiakov is the best model for fine silty loam soils and on the other hand it is among the best models suitable for loam, silty clay loam and clay loam soils. About the graphs illustrated con- cerning the simulation of the infiltration rate and the cu- mulative infiltration, we note that the best simulation is within the soil mulched with the mixture. Likewise, fol- lowing the values of NASH and R² obtained at the level of the mixture, after the stage of maturation of the tomato, we identify very good values and therefore very good simulations, contrary to the first two stages. The plausible explanation is the presence of the mulch, because accord- ing to some researchers (Simsek et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2014), mulching improves infiltration into the soil. As well, as the colored presence of roots in the soil coupled with the soil texture. The average electrical conductivity values obtained in the soil are, on the whole, very low. Let us remember that electrical conductivity is a very important parameter in agriculture. It is mainly used to determine soil salinity, but it can also be used to estimate other soil properties (soil water content, soil temperature, soil pH, soil tex- ture, organic matter, solution ion concentration, etc.) at the non-saline soil level (Cornwin and Lesh, 2005). Ac- Table 5: Correlation between average soil electrical conduc- tivity and soil moisture values at 5cm, 10 cm, 15 cm, 20 cm depths for different treatments 5 cm 10 cm 15 cm 20 cm Average humidity (%) 31.40 32.30 39.70 33.50 Average conductivity (µS cm -1 ) 0.27 0.44 0.42 0.39 R² Conductivity - Humidity 0.70 0.73 0.91 0.95 Note: R² = coefficient of determination Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 12 I. TANKEUOO KOPA et al. cording to the range suggested by the NRCS Soil Survey Handbook, we begin to have saline soil when the con- ductivity value is higher than 2 dS m -1 and non-saline soil when the conductivity value is lower than 2 dS m -1 . The values obtained in our study are well below the range sug- gested by the latter for non-saline soils. This is an assur- ance that the soil quality is ideal for agriculture. Also, a more pronounced increase in conductivity was observed at the level of wood chips (0.41 µS cm -1 ), followed by saw- dust (0.37 µS cm -1 ), straw (0.37 µS cm -1 ), control (0.38 µS cm -1 ), mixture (0.36 µS cm -1 ). Some authors (Simsek et al., 2017) have shown that mulching does not affect pH, electrical conductivity, bulk density and carbonate content in the soil. On the other hand, others have shown that all types of mulches have a much more positive effect because they maximally reduce the electrical conductiv- ity within the soil properties (Kumar et al., 2012). Ac- cording to our results, we notice that the electrical con- ductivity increases in almost all mulches, except at the level of the mixture, where it decreases compared to the control. The low value recorded at the level of the mix- ture compared to the control is indeed consistent with the results of the authors mentioned above. On the other hand, the opposite phenomenon (increase in conductiv- ity) observed in the other mulches may be due, accord- ing to some researchers (Sadek et al., 2019, Pakdel et al., 2013, Chalker-Scott, 2007), to the decomposition of the organic mulch under the effect of appropriate nutrients released in the soil, which become available to plants. But also to the texture and other properties of the soil, which unfortunately we could not study. For example, the level of phosphorus in the soil, as pointed out by Donogemma et al. (2008). The peaks in conductivity observed between 17/08/2022-06/09/2022 could be due to soil moisture. According to the work of (Costa et al., 2014), electrical conductivity is strongly influenced by soil moisture. This is similar to the result obtained in our study during this period. We found during the same period, an increase in soil moisture. The increase in conductivity that is slightly more pronounced at 10 cm depth may be due to the root development of the plants and the texture of the soil. Synthesizing the moisture data on graphs of each mulch at different depths, it is very clear that the mixture retains more moisture than the rest of the mulch and that the ideal retention depth is 15 cm. According to Dinu- shika et al. (2019) and Adams (1996), in arid or semi-arid zones, mulching would increase water retention in the soil from 0-40 cm depth. However, Stagnari et al. (2014) state that in a Mediterranean environment, mulching in general and straw in particular would increase the water retention in the soil from 5-15cm depth. According to an experiment conducted on different organic and inorgan- ic mulches (Safari et al., 2021), the ideal depth is 15 cm with an increase varying from 2 to 5 % compared to the control on bare soil. The ideal depth chosen in our study is within the range suggested by the above authors. How- ever, the rate recorded by Safari et al. (2021) is mainly consistent with sawdust. Kumar and Dey, (2011) remind us that the use of mulches on the soil surface would in- crease water diffusion under the vapor gradient during the growing season. They added by saying that this fac- tor would increase the maximum water absorption under mulch. Next, we note that the mixture was irrigated less than the other mulches. This justifies its low percent- age difference in soil water storage (2.3 %) compared to sawdust. Finally, we see that the mixture conserved a lot of soil moisture in the first two cycles. Over time, how- ever, it tends to have the same characteristics as straw in particular. The plausible explanation for this is that the wood chips and sawdust mulch decomposed faster over time than the straw. The work of Kaboneka et al. (2021) and Boyer (2021) emphasizes the fact that these mulches have in common a very slow decomposition. In fact, according to the studies carried out in Burundi by Kaboneka et al. (2021) on the decomposition of wheat straw, it appears that this mulch is characterized by a predominance of substances resistant to decomposition (cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin) and by a very high ratio of carbon to nitrogen (C/N) (76.4), that is, three times higher than the standard (25) ideal for the mineralization of nitrogen and the rapid release of nutrients contained in organic materials. Likewise, the study by Boyer (2021), conducted in Quebec on the bibliographic research of the potential use of organic mulches, showed that the C/N ratio of wood chips is about 39.2; that is, slightly high- er than the standard set. Furthermore, Nicolardot et al. (2001) point out that this ratio is considered to be the simplest biochemical indicator of the quality of organic matter, its decomposability and nutrient release poten- tial. According to Kaboneka et al. (2021), its value indi- cates whether an organic substrate is rapidly or slowly decomposable. Thus, comparing the ratios of the values obtained by their authors shows that wheat straw does indeed take longer to start decomposing compared to wood. This result supports the one obtained in the study area. Furthermore, the straw was the mulch that retained the least amount of water in the soil during the period 13/08/2022-16/08/2022. This can be explained by the peak of water demand observed during the same period. Thus, at the level of mulches, the effective classification is as follows: mixture (07), sawdust (08), straw (08), wood chips (09) and control (10). The fact that the number of irrigated turns is lower for the mulch than for the bare soil control allows us to say that the mulch used allows to reduce the irrigation frequency. This result is in line with the researches carried out by some scientists (Ahmad et Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 13 Influence of mulches on soil moisture and water infiltration in the tomato crop al., 2020, Chalker-Scott, 2007, Rasmussen, 1999). The lat- ter emphasize the fact that the application of mulch can significantly reduce the frequency of irrigation and even eliminate the need for irrigation. The choice of mulch is crucial in that some will reduce irrigation more than oth- ers, as we observed with the mulches used in the study. During the period from 10/08/2022 to 12/09/2022, when real evapotranspiration was high (marked by two peaks, one on 13/08/2022 and the other on 09/09/2022), we find that the mulched soils were more resistant than the bare soil control because they were less irrigated. This result is consistent with that of Duchaufour et al. (2017), who mention that under the effect of mulching, soil evapo- transpiration is reduced. Overall, it is noted that the mulches used retain more moisture in the soil than the control. This result is consistent with the research of Mkhabela et al. (2019) and Telkar et al. (2017), who in- dicated that soil moisture is retained under mulch. They also indicated that the percentage of water stored in the soil is higher under mulch than under bare soil. However, in our study, this result is not entirely true for the wood chips, which is an exception to the rule. In fact, the differ- ence between the control and the wood chips is slightly higher than that of the wood chips, i.e. 0.1 %. This differ - ence can be explained by the short duration of the study, but also by the nature of the soil. In fact, the wood chips, which are more enriched with sand, retain less moisture due to their texture. Also, since the difference between the two soils is very small, we can take into account the time of the study. Considering the differences that ex- ist between the wood chips and the sawdust in terms of moisture retention and the number of watering cycles, we can explain them by the grinding of the wood. The finer the wood is ground, the more water it retains in the soil. About the availability of the mulches used in the study, it should be noted that wood waste is widely avail- able in Algeria. Indeed, (Irinslimane, 2007), points out that its recycled waste amounts to 7 to 8 million tons per year, and comes mainly from forestry operations and sawmills. As for (Chachoua, 2015), cereal growing ac- counts for more than 50 % of useful agricultural areas. The figures given by these researchers reassure us that sufficient water is being used for large areas of irrigation fields in Algeria. The correlation between the average values of soil electrical conductivity and soil moisture at different depths in different mulches gave good results with co- efficients of determination ranging from 0.70 to 0.95 in almost all depths. The strong correlation observed re- flects the influence of soil moisture on conductivity. This result is in agreement with the one obtained by Costa et al. (2014) in Brazil. 5 CONCLUSION In addition to climate change, the overuse of water, chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the cultivation of to- matoes in Algeria has become almost commonplace, in the quest for extreme profitability. Our study is intended to be useful in the sense that, in addition to conserving soil moisture, it can contribute to soil restructuring, as well as enrich the soil with the organic matter and nutri- ents plants need to grow and produce good yields. In ad- dition, knowledge of the soil’s infiltration rate and char- acteristics enables better irrigation management. For scientists and researchers, this study contrib- utes to a better understanding of organic mulch and soil moisture in crops. As for legislators, we encourage them to set up a policy to raise awareness among individuals, farmers and water managers of the advantages of organic mulch in agriculture. Through this study, which aims to be simple in its application, economical and save time and energy, we en- courage the above stakeholders to increasingly practice the use of organic mulch in their various crops. This lim- its weeds, preserves the environment, reduces irrigation requirements, improves water infiltration and conserves soil moisture. What’s more, once decomposed, they form compost, ideal for plant growth. This reduces the need for nitrogen fertilizers. However, if the organic mulch chosen has a positive effect on the various aspects mentioned above, it should be noted that the questions of application density, effect on the growth of tomato crops, and agricultural yield de- pending on the mulch chosen remain unknown. As is the question of soil temperature and organic matter content. We are currently working on these questions to gain a better understanding them. 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study was carried out at the Water and Envi- ronmental Engineering Laboratory (GEE) of the High- er National School of Hydraulics (ENSH) of Blida. The study was carried out within the framework of the “ AF- RICAN W ATER RESOURCES MOBILITY NETWORK” (A W aRMN) project funded by the Intra-Africa Academic Mobility Scheme of the European Union. Also, the study is carried out within the framework of the SW ATCH pro- ject (Prima project) funded by the DGRSDT, Algeria. 7 REFEREN CES Adams J.E. (1966). Influence of mulches on runoff, ero- Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 14 I. TANKEUOO KOPA et al. sion, and soil moisture depletion. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 30, 110–114. https://doi.org/10.2136/ sssaj1966.03615995003000010036x Ahmad, S., Raza, M., A. S., Saleem, M., F., Zaheer, M., S., Iqbal, R., Haider, I., Aslam, M., U., Ali, M., Khan, I., H. (2020). Significance of partial root zone drying and mulches for water saving and weed suppression in wheat. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 3, 154–162. Almetwally, M., Soussa, H., Fattouh, E. M. (2019). Environ- mentally friendly soil water conservation techniques. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Tech- nology, 9(1), 5513–5520. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat. A2045.10911 Amichi, F., Bouarfa, S., Lejars, C., Kuper, M., Hartani, T., Daoudi, A., Amichi, H., Belhamra, M. (2015). Des serres et des hommes : Des exploitations motrices de l’expansion territoriale et de l’ascension socioprofessionnelle sur un front pionnier de l’agriculture saharienne en Algérie. Ca- hiers Agricultures, 24(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1684/ agr.2015.0736 Bear, J.(1972). Dynamics of fluids in porous media. American Elsevier publishing company, New Y ork, 764 p Boyer, L. (2021). Revue de littérature systématique sur le poten- tiel d’utilisation des paillis organiques à améliorer la qualité des sols et de la durabilité des vergers de pommes québé- cois. Rapport de fin d’étude, Université de Laval, 61p. Chachoua I. (2015). L ’urée dans l’alimentation des ovins : consé- quences sur la gestation, la parturition et le croît. Thèse de Doctorat en sciences, universite el-hadj lakhdar-batna, Al- gérie. 133p Chaux, C.L. et Foury, C.L., (1994). Cultures légumières et marai- chères. Tome III : légumineuses potagères, légumes fruit. Tec et Doc Lavoisier, Paris. 563p. Chalker-Scott, L. (2007). Wood chip mulch : Landscape boon or bane ? 21–23. Corwin, D.L. and Lesch, S.M. (2005). Apparent soil electri- cal conductivity measurements in agriculture. Comput- ers and Electronics in Agriculture, 46, 11-43. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compag.2004.10.005 Costa, M. M., de Queiroz, D. M., de Carvalho Pinto, F. de A., dos Reis, E. F., Santos, N. T. (2014). Efeito do teor de água na relação entre a condutividade elétrica aparente e atribu- tos do solo. Acta Scientiarum - Agronomy, 36(4), 395–401. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v36i4.18342 Dinushika, W ., Mumtaz, C., Raymond, T ., Lakshman, G. (2019). Effect of biochar on TDR-based volumetric soil moisture measurements in a loamy sand podzolic soil. Soil Systems, 3(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems3030049 Djouda-Hallal D. (2014). Approche méthodologique de la vul- nérabilité de la ressource en eau souterraine en milieu for- tement urbanisé: exemple en Algérie des plaines littorales (Mitidja). Thèse de doctorat.USTHB, 157 p. Donagemma, G. K. et al. (2008). Solution equilibrium phos- phorus in clay and silt fractions of oxisols after particle size analysis pre-treatments. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 32(2-4), 1785-1791. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100- 06832008000400043 Duchaufour, H., M. Bizimana, E. Roose , Mikokoro, C. (2017). Efficacité des haies mixtes, du fumier et du paillage pour la conservation de l’eau et la restauration de la productivité d’un sol ferralitique argileux acide du Burundi. In E. Roose (edit.) Restauration de la productivité des sols tropicaux et méditerranéens. Contribution à l’agroécologie. pp. 603-611. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.irdeditions.24492 Ecrement, Y., et Seghir, B. (1971). Etude agro-pédologique de la plaine de la Mitidja et carte 1/50 000, Alger : Institut Géogra- phique National. Farid, H. U., Mahmood-Khan, Z., Ahmad, I., Shakoor, A., An- jum, M. N., Iqbal, M. M., Mubeen, M., Asghar, M. (2019). Estimation of infiltration models parameters and their comparison to simulate the onsite soil infiltration charac- teristics. International Journal of Agricultural and Biologi- cal Engineering, 12(3), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.25165/j. ijabe.20191203.4015 Freire, E. R., Almeida, A., & Koide, S. (2020). Avaliação das medições de umidade utilizando sonda de reflectometria no domínio do tempo (TDR) com tubos de acesso em ma- terial padrão e alternativo. Xv Simpósio De Recursos Hídri- cos Do Nordeste, 61. Furman, A., Warrick, A. W., Zerihun, D., & Sanchez, C. A. (2006). Modified Kostiakov Infiltration Function: Account- ing for Initial and Boundary Conditions. Journal of Irriga- tion and Drainage Engineering, 132(6), 587–596. https:// doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2006)132:6(587) Goel, L., Shankar, V ., & Sharma, R. K. (2020). Effect of organic mulches on agronomic parameters – a case study of tomato crop (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 9(3), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.30486/IJROW A.2020.1887263.1015 Irinslimane, H. (2007), Etude de l’adsorption d’un pesticide sur matériaux de récupération (sciure de bois et chutes de liège). Mémoire de Magister, Ecole Nationale Polytechnique, Alger, 69 p Jacks, C. V . Brind, W . D. and Smith, R. (1955). Mulching Tech- nology Comm., No. 49, Common Wealth. Bulletin of Soil Science, 118p. Kaboneka, S., Nsavyimana, G., Bizimana, S., Bicereza, D. (2021). Cinétique de décomposition de la paille de blé dans un sol acide du Mugamba Sud (Burundi): effet du mode d’ ap- plication. 10-19. Kumar, S., and Dey, P. (2011). Effects of different mulches and irrigation methods on root growth , nutrient uptake , water-use efficiency and yield of strawberry. Scientia Hor- ticulturae, 127(3), 318–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sci- enta.2010.10.023 Kumar D.K., Lal B.R. (2012). Effect of mulching on crop pro- duction under rainfed condition: a review. International Journal of Research in Chemistry and Environment, 2(2), 8-20. Haghiabi, A. H., Abedi-Koupai, J., Heidarpour, J. M., Moham- madzadeh-Habili, J. (2011). A new method for estimating the parameters of Kostiakov and modified Kostiakov in- filtration equations. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15(1), 129–135. Haverkamp, R., Kutilek, M., Parlange, J.-Y., Rendon, L., and Krejca, M. (1988). Infiltration under ponded conditions: Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 15 Influence of mulches on soil moisture and water infiltration in the tomato crop 2. Infiltration equations tested for parameter time-depend- ence and predictive use. Journal of Soil Science, 145, 317– 329. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-198805000-00001 Kostiakov, A N. (1932). On the dynamics of the coefficient of water percolation in soils and the necessity of studying it from the dynamic point of view for the purposes of Amelio- ration. Transactions International Society of Soil Science. 6th Commission, Moscow, Part A: 17. (in Japanese) Laribi S., Boutonnet J.-P ., Brabez Fn Adem R. et. Kheffache H. (2023). Les formes d’intégration agriculture -élevage. Le cas des systèmes de polyculture-élevage. Les Cahiers du Cread, 39, 307–348. DOI: 10.4314/cread.v39i1.11 Lamont, W.J. A.D. (2005). Index, Features Plastics: Modifying the Microclimate for the Production of Vegetable Crops, 15. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.15.3.0477 Liao, Y., Cao, H. X., Liu, X., Li, H. T., Hu, Q. Y., & Xue, W. K. (2021). By increasing infiltration and reducing evaporation, mulching can improve the soil water environment and ap- ple yield of orchards in semiarid areas. Agricultural Water Management, 253(26), 106936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agwat.2021.106936 MADR (2009). Bilan du programme quinquennal du secteur agricole et rural 2005-2009, Rapport interne, 51 p. MADR (2011). Le Renouveau Agricole en chiffres. Rapport d’ étape. Contrats de performance 2009- 2010 et prévisions de clôture 2011, Alger. 116 p. Meddi, M., Meddi, H., Toumi, S., Mehaiguen, M. (2013). Re- gionalization of rainfall in north-western Algeria. Ge- ographia Technica, 1, 56–69. Mirzaee, S., Zolfaghari, A. A., Gorji, M., Dyck, M., & Ghorbani Dashtaki, S. (2014). Evaluation of infiltration models with different numbers of fitting parameters in different soil tex- ture classes. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 60(5), 681–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2013.823477 Mishra, S. K., Tyagi, J. V., & Singh, V. P. (2003). Comparison of infiltration models. Hydrological Processes, 17(13), 2629– 2652. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1257 Mkhabela, K. T., Dlamini, M. V , & Manyatsi, A. M. (2019). The effect of mulching on soil moisture retention and yield of lettuce ( Lactuca sativa L .). International Journal of Envi- ronmental & Agriculture Research, 5(9), 47–50. Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W ., Bingner, R.L. et al. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for sys- tematic quan- tification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans AS- ABE, 50(3), 885–900. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153 Nicolardot, B., Recous, S., & Mary, B. (2001). Simulation of C and N mineralisation during crop residue decomposi- tion: A simple dynamic model based on the C : N ratio of the residues. Plant and Soil, 228(1), 83–103. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1004813801728 Niyazi, B., Masoud, M., Elfeki, A., Rajmohan, N., Alqarawy, A., & Rashed, M. (2022). A comparative analysis of infiltration models for groundwater recharge from ephemeral stream beds: A case study in Al Madinah Al Munawarah Prov- ince, Saudi Arabia. Water (Switzerland), 14(11). https://doi. org/10.3390/w14111686 Oku, E., and Aiyelari, A. (2011). Predictability of Philip and Ko- stiakov infiltration models under inceptisols in the humid forest zone, Nigeria. Kasetsart Journal, 45, 594–602. Pakdel, P, A. Tehranifar, H. Nemati, A. Lakzian, M., Kharrazi (2013). Effect of different mulching materials on soil prop- erties under semi- arid conditions in north-eastern Iran. Wudpecker, Journal of Agricultural Research, 2(3), 80-85. Philip, J R. (1957). The theory of infiltration: 4. Sorptivity and algebraic infiltration equations. Soil Science, 84, 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195709000-00010 Rasmussen, K.J. (1999) Impact of ploughless soil tillage on yield and soil quality: A Scandinavian review. Soil and Tillage Research, 53, 3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987 (99)00072-0 Robinson G. W . (1949). Soils. Their origin, constitution and clas- sification. London.Thomas Murby & Co, N.Y.J. Wiley & Sons Inc., 573 p Sadek, I. I., Youssef, M. A., Solieman, N. Y., & Alyafei, M. A. M. (2019). Response of soil properties, growth, yield and fruit quality of cantaloupe plants (Cucumis melo L.) to or- ganic mulch. Merit Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Sciences, 7(9), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.3463634 Safari, N., Kazemi, F., & Tehrani, A. (2021). Examining tem- perature and soil moisture contents of mulches in the urban landscaping of an arid region. Journal of Desert, 26(2), 139– 156. https://doi.org/10.22059/jdesert.2020.256170.1006639 Sharma, S., Basnet, B., Bhattarai, K., Sedhai, A., & Khanal, K. (2023). The influence of different mulching materials on Tomato’s vegetative, reproductive, and yield in Dhankuta, Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 11(Decem- ber), 100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100463 Simsek, U., Erdel, E., & Barik, K. (2017). Effect of mulching on soil moisture and some soil characteristics. Fresenius Envi- ronmental Bulletin, 26(12), 7437–7443. Skhiri, A. (2019). Les Bases de l’Irrigation : Calcul des besoins en eau. April, 97p. Smerdon, E.T., Blair, AW . (1988). Infiltration à partir des don- nées avancées d’irrigation. II: Expérimental. Journal of Irri- gation and Drainage Engineering, 114(1), 18-30. https://doi. org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(1988)114:1 (18) Stagnari, F., Galieni, A., Speca, S., Cafiero, G., & Pisante, M. (2014). Field crops research effects of straw mulch on growth and yield of durum wheat during transition to conservation agriculture in mediterranean environment. Field Crops Research, 167, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fcr.2014.07.008 Stelli, S., Hoy, L., Hendrick, R., & Taylor, M. (2018). Effects of different mulch types on soil moisture content in potted shrubs. Journal of Water SA, 44(3), 495–503. https://doi. org/10.4314/wsa.v44i3.17 Tarchag, C. (2020). Effet des doses d’irrigation sur la culture de tomate dans la région de Biskra. Mémoire de Master, Uni- versité de Biskra-Algérie, 51p. Telkar S. G., Shivkumar & Kant, Kamal & Pratap, Shivendu & Solanki, Shivendu. (2017). Effect of mulching on soil mois- ture conservation. Journal of Biomolecule Reports, 4p. Vand, A. S., Sihag, P ., Singh, B., & Zand, M. (2018). Compara- tive evaluation of infiltration models. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(10), 4173–4184. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12205-018-1347-1 Xing, X., Li Y., Ma X. (2017). Effects on infiltration and evapo- Acta agriculturae Slovenica, 119/4 – 2023 16 I. TANKEUOO KOPA et al. ration when adding rapeseed-oil residue or wheat straw to a loam soil. Journal of Water, 9(9), 700. https://doi. org/10.3390/w9090700 Yuemei, H., Xiaoqin, Z., Jianguo, S., & Jina, N. (2008). Con- duction between left superior pulmonary vein and left atria and atria fibrillation under cervical vagal trunk stimulation. Colombia Medica, 39(3), 227–234. Zegada-Lizarazu and Berliner. (2011). The effects of the degree of soil cover with an impervious sheet on the establishment of tree seedlings in an arid environment. New Forests, 42, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-010-9233-9 Zhang, J. B., Yang, J. S., Yao, R. J., Yu, S. P., Li, F. R., & Hou, X. J. (2014). The effects of farmyard manure and mulch on soil physical properties in a reclaimed coastal tidal flat salt- affected soil. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 13(8), 1782– 1790. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60530-4 Zolfaghari, AA, Mirzaee, S., et Gorji, M. (2012). Comparaison de différents modèles pour estimer l’infiltration cumulée. Journal International des Sciences du Sol, 7(3), 108. DOI : 10.3923/ijss. 2012.108.115.