COMPOSITIONS FOR ENHANCING IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF [0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No.63/436,974, filed January 4, 2023, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. FIELD [0002] The present disclosure is directed to compositions for enhancing irrigation efficiency and methods of use thereof. BACKGROUND [0003] The demand of irrigation efficiency is understood to be of global importance. While agricultural irrigation needs grow due to population growth, and climate change, other uses of water place additional and significant pressure on global water resources. In addition, suitable root-zone conditions are important for plant growth. [0004] Developing more efficient irrigation methods and materials and optimizing root-zone conditions is vital to the future of agriculture, and to societies’ water resources in general. Some estimate that around 70 percent of all the world's freshwater withdrawals are used for agricultural irrigation uses (Sojka et al., “Irrigation: An Historical Perspective,” Encyclopedia of Soil Science (2012)), which is three times more than 50 years ago. By 2050, global water demand of agriculture is estimated to increase by an additional 19% due to irrigation. In some regions of the world, water scarcity is already an acute problem. The situation will deteriorate in the decades to come if patterns of water overuse, waste, and contamination don’t change. Since the quantity of water available is essentially finite, it is essential that technologies are developed to make irrigation water use more efficient. [0005] The goal of irrigation efficiency is to deliver the precise amount of water needed, to plants of a growing crop – no more and no less. This is a technological challenge. Traditional flood irrigation wasted most of the water used by irrigated plants. Spray methods improved efficiency but still suffered from significant evaporation losses. Drip irrigation was a major innovation in irrigation efficiency. [0006] The history of irrigation has seen a series of technological breakthroughs. Flood irrigation, tapping subterranean aquifers, pumping and pressurizing, and various spray apparatus (Sojka et al., “Irrigation: An Historical Perspective,” Encyclopedia of Soil Science (2012)). The invention of “drip irrigation” techniques and devices in the 1960s was a 166780595v1
technological leapfrog in terms of agricultural irrigation efficiency. Compared to their high- pressure, high-energy counterparts, drip irrigation can cut down energy costs by as much as 50% and increase water efficiency by 40 to 70% (see, e.g., United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service, “Irrigation Guide,” USDA (2020). A drip irrigation system can increase water use efficiency up to 70%, compared to spray or flood methods. This efficiency means significantly less irrigation water use for the same crop-growth result. First introduced in California in the late 1960s, only 5% of irrigated land used this system by 1988. By 2010, 40% of irrigated land in California used this system (Zilberman & David, “The Diffusion of Process Innovation: The Case of Drip Irrigation in California,” 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (2015)). More recent developments such as “microjet/micro-spray”, “drip-tape”, and subsurface emitters are all designed to increase the water-use efficiency of agricultural irrigation. [0007] Modification of soil properties through chemical amendment has been developed over several decades. A considerable amount of invention has resulted in numerous chemical treatments for enhancing irrigation efficiency. Among several other factors, various soil physics issues underlie the irrigation efficiency challenge: the tendency of surface soil to resist penetration by water – and thus the “infiltration rate” of water into the subsurface soil; the variability of soil-water to move horizontally through the soil; and the capacity of soil to retain water in those porous areas accessible to plant roots. Irrigation efficiency is improved if water quickly penetrates into the soil subsurface – where it is available to roots. Also, if water remains on the surface, it is highly susceptible to evaporation, particularly in hot and dry climates. Irrigation efficiency is also improved if soil-water can move more readily horizontally, especially through zones of soil-water repellency (SWR) created by soil physico-chemical properties. [0008] A common approach to increasing soil infiltration rate is the application of surfactants, wetting agents, and related compounds that effectively reduce water tension, allowing water to penetrate and flow through soil pores more readily. These surfactants and wetting agents also cause water to flow through the soil more homogeneously. [0009] Some attempts have been made to ameliorate the problems associated with irrigation water-use efficiency, typically with so-called “soil-wetting” agents – largely surfactants. In addition, efforts have been made to improve combinations of irrigation and fertilization of crops (i.e., “fertigation”). These irrigation and fertigation enhancement agents include liquid and solid formulations of chemistries that, when added to irrigation water or to
soil, affect various phenomena that impact how much irrigation water is needed for optimal crop growth, and enhance fertilizer effects. These agents have various effects on penetration rate of water into the soil surface, lateral spread of water across the soil profile, amelioration of soil water repellency effects, and retention of water in the rhizosphere. Such treatments encompass anionic, cationic, amphoteric, and nonionic molecules and include: block copolymers, methyl-capped tri-block copolymers, propyleneoxide-ethylene oxide tri-block copolymers, amino acid copolymers, alkyl polyglucosides, alkyl phenol ethoxylate, D- limonene, organosilicone surfactants, amphipathic lipids, and modified fatty acids. Other chemical surfactant and wetting agents that have been used to enhance soil water penetration include anionic surfactants, acrylic copolymers, polyelectrolytic polymers, starch or cellulose xanthate, acid-hydrolyzed cellulose microfibrils, chitosan, polyvinyl alcohol, acrylates, acrylonitriles, acrylamides, polyvinyl alcohol, sodium polyacrylate, vinylacetates, various graft polymers, polyols. Other methods of enhancing irrigation water penetration into soil include: application of clay, slow-release fertilizers, lime, and fungicides, stimulating earthworms, choosing adapted vegetation, irrigation, cultivation, soil aeration and compaction (Müller & Deurer, “Review of the Remediation Strategies for Soil Water Repellency,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 144(1):208-221 (2011)). [0010] The use of soil-water management agents has historically focused on two primary issues: erosion control and SWR. Regarding erosion control, polyacrylamides (PAMs) have been evaluated (typically at high concentration applications (see, e.g., Sojka et al., Polyacrylamide in Agriculture and Environmental Land Management,” Advances in Agronomy, 92: 75–162 (2007)) and found to be less than optimal for agricultural uses due to cost and difficulty in use and are not used for irrigation water-use efficiency (see, e.g., Sojka et al., “Soil Water Measurements Relevant to Agronomic and Environmental Functions of Chemically Treated Soil,” Journal of ASTM International 6:1 (2007)). SWR has driven much more product development, particularly in turf (Dekker et al., “The Impact of Water Repellency on Soil Moisture Variability and Preferential Flow,” Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J., 9:498–505 (2001)) but also in agriculture (Hallet, P.D., “An Introduction to Soil Water Repellency,” Proc. 8th International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agro-chemicals (ISAA2007), Columbus, OH, Aug. 6–9, 2007; Hopkins and Cook, “Water Repellent Soils in Potato Production,” ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual Meetings Abstracts 2007: 329-11 (2007); and Lehrsch et al, “Surfactant and Irrigation Effects on Wettable Soils: Runoff, Erosion, and Water Retention Responses,” Hydrol. Process.25:766–777 (2011)). Surfactants have received particular attention for treatment of SWR turf care (Kosta et al., “Irrigation
Efficiency – Surfactants can save Water and help Maintain Turfgrass Quality,” Golf Course Industry, 19, 4, 91–95 (2007)) and agriculture (Moore et al., “The Effect of Soil Surfactants on Soil Hydrological Behavior, the Plant Growth Environment, Irrigation Efficiency and Water Conservation,” J. Hydrol. Hydromech.58(3):142–148 (2010); and Speth et al., “Use of Surfactant to Improve Water and Nitrogen Efficiency in Potato Production on Sandy Soils,” ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual Meetings Abstracts (2005); THE IRRIGATION ASSOCIATION, 2003: Irrigation Scheduling. Chapter 5 in Principles of Irrigation, IA, Falls Church, VA, p.98 (2205); and Orts, W., “Use of Synthetic Polymers and Biopolymers for Soil Stabilization in Agricultural, Construction, and Military Applications,” J. of Materials in Civil Engineering ASCE (2007). [0011] The soil wetting agent is segmented into two primary applications, turf management and agriculture. Soil wetting agents have a relatively long history of use in turf management – but not in agriculture. The turf management industry has been using soil wetting agents routinely for decades – eighty six percent (86%) of surveyed golf course superintendents report the use of a soil wetting agent product (Karnok et al., “Wetting Agents: What are they, and how do they Work?,” Golf Course Superintendents Association Survey (2004)). At present, turf management is a larger market, but agricultural is growing faster (“Global Soil Wetting Agents Industry (2020 to 2017) – Key Market Drivers and Trends – ResearchAndMarkets.com)” in Businesswire (2021)). The global chemigation and fertigation market was valued at $44 billion in 2021 and expected to grow to $54.24 billion by 2028 at a CAGR of 3.03% (8). This market includes fertigation and chemigation and, like the irrigation market in general, is largely equipment focused (“Microirrigation Systems Market by Type (Drip and Micro Sprinkler), Application (Orchard Crops & Vinyards, Plantation Crops, and Field Crops), End User (Farmers and Industrial Users), and Region – Global Forecast to 2026,” in Market Research Report (2021) Soil water retention agents that reduce leaching losses should be particularly valuable in this market given the potential savings in fertilizer and/or agrichemical costs. [0012] The historically high use of surfactants and polymers for soil water management in the turf care industry compared to agriculture is worth considering. Why is the market for such products so much larger in turf than agriculture? The answer may lie in the fact that turf is essentially a monoculture (grasses) of very shallow-rooted plants. Agriculture is a much more complex and varied mix of very different plant types – with different rooting depths and structures. However, work has been done to evaluate soil water management agents in agriculture. For example, surfactants have demonstrated effectiveness
in increasing yields in potato, peanuts, and lettuce (Moore et al., “The Effect of Soil Surfactants on Soil Hydrological Behavior, the Plant Growth Environment, Irrigation Efficiency and Water Conservation,” J. Hydrol. Hydromech., 58(3):142–148 (2010); and Oostindie et al., “Influence of a Single Soil Surfactant Application on Potato Ridge Moisture Dynamics and Crop Yield in a Water Repellent Sandy Soil,” Acta. Horticulturae 938:341- 346 (2012)). [0013] As mentioned above, polymers have been utilized for water retention in agricultural and horticultural applications. “Hydrogels” are soft-solid polymeric complexes (of various chemistries) that are highly hygroscopic (Trinchera and Baratella, “Use of a Non- Ionic Water Surfactant in Lettuce Fertigation for Optimizing Water Use, Improving Nutrient Use Efficiency, and Increasing Crop Quality,” Water 10(5):613 (2018)). They have been used to enhance water retention in soils (Koupai et al., “Enhancing the Available Water Content in Unsaturated Soil Zone Using Hydrogel, to Improve Plant Growth Indices,” Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 8(1):67–75 (2008); Wang et al., “Chapter 10: Hydrogels,” in Polymer Science and Nanotechnology: Fundamentals and Applications Elsevier (2020); Elshafie et al., “Applications of Absorbent Polymers for Sustainable Plant Protection and Crop Yield Journal Sustainability,” 13(6):3253 (2021); Abobatta, W., “Impact of Hydrogel Polymer in Agricultural Sector,” J. Adv. Agric. Environ. Sci.1(2):59–64 (2018); and Saha et al., “Superabsorbent Hydrogel (SAH) as a Soil Amendment for Drought Management: A review,” Journal Soil & Tillage Research 204:104736 (2020)) but the cost and feasibility of these solids limits their application to horticultural and similarly small-scale applications. Water soluble polymers (WSPs) have grown in irrigation use and are growing in agricultural applications where they show significant promise, and some challenges (Guido et al., “Biodegradation of Water-Soluble and Water-Dispersible Polymers for Agricultural, Consumer, and Industrial Applications—Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Materials Solutions,” J. Polymer Science 60(12):1797-1813 (2022); Puoci et al., “Polymer in Agriculture: A Review,” American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3(1):299–314 (2008); Wallace and Wallace, “Soil and Crop Improvement with Water- Soluble Polymers,” Soil Technology 3(1):1–8 (1990); and Skider, et al., “Recent Trends in Advanced Polymer Materials in Agriculture Related Applications,” ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 3(3):1203–1217 (2021)). [0014] Table 1 below lists exemplary soil irrigation agents. Of these, thirteen are polymeric based.
Table 1. Exemplary Commercially Available Soil Irrigation Agents Soil Irrigation
Products Description Technology/ Chemical C
onstituents ic rt % f
through irrigation systems on large turf areas and nurseries or i l i %
Up to 15% Yield Increase, 30% LESS Water and Energy. 30% Ethylene oxide, “Mi I i T h l ” l i l k t
sodium sulfosuccinate and water es
in the art. SUMMARY [0016] One aspect of the present disclosure is directed to a method of irrigating a plant growth medium. This method involves providing a plant growth medium and blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition, where the irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 80.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. This method further involves irrigating the plant growth medium with the irrigation water composition.
[0017] In some embodiments, this method involves providing a plant growth medium and blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition, where the irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 80.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 50.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0018] In some embodiments, this method involves providing a plant growth medium and blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition, where the irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0019] Another aspect of the present disclosure relates to an irrigation water composition comprising less than 0.8wt% of an irrigation additive composition and more than 99.2 wt% water, where the water is blended with the irrigation additive composition. The irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 80.00 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and
cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0020] In some embodiments, the irrigation water composition comprises less than 0.8 wt%, less than 0.7 wt%, less than 0.6 wt%, less than 0.5 wt%, less than 0.4 wt%, less than 0.3 wt%, less than 0.2 wt%, less than 0.1 wt%, less than 0.09 wt%, less than 0.08 wt%, less than 0.07 wt%, less than 0.06 wt%, less than 0.05 wt%, less than 0.04 wt%, less than 0.03 wt%, less than 0.02 wt%, less than 0.01 wt%, less than 0.009 wt%, less than 0.008 wt%, less than 0.007 wt%, less than 0.006 wt%, less than 0.005 wt%, less than 0.004 wt%, less than 0.003 wt%, less than 0.002 wt%, less than 0.001 wt%, less than 0.0009 wt%, less than 0.0008 wt%, less than 0.0007 wt%, less than 0.0006 wt%, less than 0.0005 wt%, less than 0.0004 wt%, less than 0.0003 wt%, less than 0.0002 wt%, less than 0.0001 wt%, or any amount there between of the irrigation additive composition. [0021] In some embodiments, the irrigation water composition comprises more than 99.2 wt%, more than 99.3 wt%, more than 99.4 wt%, more than 99.5 wt%, more than 99.6 wt%, more than 99.7 wt%, more than 99.8 wt%, more than 99.9 wt%, more than 99.91 wt%, more than 99.92 wt%, more than 99.93 wt%, more than 99.94 wt%, more than 99.95 wt%, more than 99.96 wt%, more than 99.97 wt%, more than 99.98 wt%, more than 99.99 wt%, more than 99.991 wt%, more than 99.992 wt%, more than 99.993 wt%, more than 99.994 wt%, more than 99.995 wt%, more than 99.996 wt%, more than 99.997 wt%, more than 99.998 wt%, more than 99.999 wt%, more than 99.9991 wt%, more than 99.9992 wt%, more than 99.9993 wt%, more than 99.9994 wt%, more than 99.9995 wt%, more than 99.9996 wt%, more than 99.9997 wt%, more than 99.9998 wt%, more than 99.9999 wt%, or any amount there between of water. [0022] In some embodiments, the irrigation water composition comprises less than 0.8 wt% of an irrigation additive composition and more than 99.2 wt% water, where the water is blended with the irrigation additive composition. The irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 60.00 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to
5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0023] A further aspect of the present disclosure relates to a composition suitable for growing plants comprising a plant growth medium and an irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure. [0024] Another aspect of the present disclosure relates to a method of improving plant growth conditions, where the plant growth conditions are selected from the group consisting of: (1) increasing harvested yield of a plant part; (2) increasing irrigation efficiency; (3) increased water penetration rate into a growth medium surface; (4) increased water retention in a plant-growth medium rhizosphere; (5) enhanced lateral movement of water through subsurface growth medium; (6) reduced variability of percent growth medium water content over time; (7) reduced percent growth medium water content at shallow growth medium depths; (8) increased plant root uptake of growth medium water; (9) increased cation exchange capacity of a growth medium system; (10) retention of ions in a plant-growth medium rhizosphere; (11) enhanced activity of beneficial growth medium microbes; (12) increased root biomass; and (13) increased plant leaf chlorophyll content. This method involves: (a) providing a plant and/or a plant seed in a plant growth medium; (b) blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition, said irrigation additive composition comprising: (i) 30.0 to 80.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, wherein the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent; (c) irrigating the plant growth medium with the irrigation water composition; (d) growing the plant or the plant seed to maturity in the plant growth medium and (e) harvesting a plant part from the mature plant, where said method, respectively, results, compared to said irrigating with irrigation water not
containing said irrigation additive, in: for (1), the harvested yield of the plant part is increased; for (2), the irrigation efficiency is increased; for (3), the water penetration rate into the growth medium surface is increased; for (4), the water retention in the plant growth medium rhizosphere is increased; for (5), the lateral movement of water through subsurface growth medium is increased; for (6), the variability of percent growth medium-water content over time is reduced; for (7), the percent growth medium-water content at shallow soil depths is reduced; for (8), the plant root uptake of growth medium water is increased; for (9), the cation exchange capacity of the growth medium system is increased; for (10), the retention of ions in the plant-growth medium rhizosphere is increased; for (11), the activity of beneficial growth medium microbes is increased; for (12), the root biomass is increased; and for (13), the plant leaf chlorophyll content is increased. [0025] In some embodiments, (b) blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition involves using an irrigation additive composition comprising: (i) 30.0 to 80.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, wherein the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 50.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0026] In some embodiments, (b) blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition involves using an irrigation additive composition comprising: (i) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, wherein the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion
complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0027] Irrigating plant growth media with an irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure enhances the water-use efficiency (increases soil infiltration/penetration rate of surface-applied water, increases water-retention capacity of soil thereby increasing “field capacity”, and decreases soil leaching by water. In field trial experiments, irrigation carried out using the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure required 30% less water to maintain soil-water content, compared to water alone. [0028] U.S. Patent No.11,457.624 to LeFiles et al. describes the use of plant treatment chemical formulations comprising a thickener, a water soluble divalent salt, a foam control agent, a metal ion complexing agent, a film forming agent, and water to treat plant seeds or growing plants. The formulation of U.S. Patent No.11,457,624 to LeFiles, when applied to the surfaces of a plant seed or a growing plant, forms a dried coating material which adheres to the surfaces of the plant seed or the growing plant and permits permeation of aqueous material to the plant seed or growing plant while minimizing loss of moisture or loss of the plant treatment chemical from the plant seed or the growing plant. There is no suggestion in LeFiles of using the subject formulation for irrigation of plant growth media (i.e., soil) and plants or plant parts, nor does LeFiles teach or suggest the aqueous dilution levels of the formulation in the present disclosure. Without being bound by theory, the significant dilutions of soil-water application of the irrigation water compositions according to the present disclosure are necessary to achieve unique properties of dynamic interaction with surrounding water, dissolved ions, the soil particle surfaces, and the root surfaces. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS [0029] FIG.1 is a heat map. Using a John Deere S770S combine with the “Active Yield” yield monitoring system (also John Deere), the precision agriculture system is a widely used yield mapping system that combines precise grain flow sensors on the combine with a georeferenced, GPS satellite link. The color coded yield maps which this system produces aid growers in evaluating how to address problem areas in fields as well as how any new technology is performing. The yield levels shown in the gray-scale heat-map of FIG.1 are in bushels/acre, with their corresponding shades of grey according to increasing yield: light grey is lowest yield (186.43-225.51 bushels/acre), with increasingly dark gray shades indicating higher yields (225.52-254.35 bushels/acre, 254.36-277.81 bushels/acre, 277.82- 299.78 bushels/acre, 299.79-325.64 bushels/acre), and the highest yield in darkest gray at
325.65+ bushels/acre. Looking at the diagram, it is apparent that an increased yield pattern can be seen in the upper-half of the circular image (the pivot-based irrigation pattern) which is where treatment was carried out with irrigation water formulations of the present disclosure. [0030] FIG 2. represents the patterns of Root Uptake of water at several depths over ten weeks. Each bar on the y-axis represents the total average Root Uptake of water (in inches of water) at the location and treatment, each bar on the x-axis represents roughly one week, with total days of treatment indicated on the x-axis. FIG.2 are graphs showing the plot of sum of root uptake over several weeks broken down by treatment #. The data is filtered in time, which ranges from Day 7512:00:00 AM to Day 15211:59:59 PM and includes null values. The data is indicated by measurement depth and sum of root uptake. [0031] FIG.3 is a graph where the y-axis represents the average chlorophyll-content- index (CCI) in sample corn leaves taken from four different irrigation field treatments. The x-axis represents the 4 different irrigation treatments. “Control” represents 2 plots irrigated with water in the absence of an irrigation aid; and Formula J and Formula I represent 2 plots irrigated with water including Formula J and Formula I of an irrigation aid according to the present disclosure. [0032] FIG.4 is a plot showing the average % soil-water over time at each treatment location and averaged over all measurements at 15 cm depths. The y-axis shows “M%” which is soil moisture (aka water) percentage, and the x-axis represents the time at which the measurement was taken. In this data, the automatic %soil-water measurement was taken every 15-minutes from Day 75, 12:00 AM to Day 152, 12:00 AM. The treatment of the present disclosure is an average of formulation J of the present disclosure (sensor driven irrigation) and formulation I of the present disclosure (standard/calendar driven irrigation). Control is an average of %soil-water measurement taken in the sensor driven irrigation, and (standard/calendar driven irrigation method/locations). [0033] FIGS.5A–5B are heat maps showing the % soil-water in fields drip-line irrigated with irrigation water compositions comprising control (with no irrigation aid (FIG. 5A) and fields drip-irrigated with the irrigation aid of the present disclosure (FIG.5B). %soil-water is indicated by a grey-scale “heat-map” (see scale-bar) of varying %soil-water. The heat-map also indicates “topographic-style” lines denoting contiguous regions of %soil- water. The X-axis provides the distance along the horizontal Sentek probes between emitter rows. Probes measure %soil-water a 5cm, 15cm, 25cm, 35cm, with 45cm the midpoint
between the two separate emitters. The y-axis is time (in days) from irrigation event (Day 0, Day 2, Day 4, Day 6, Day 8, Day 10, Day 12, Day 14, Day 16, Day 18, Day 20, and Day 22). [0034] FIG.6 is a table showing the %soil-water measured at depths of 5cm, 15cm, 25cm, 35cm, 45cm, 55cm, 65cm, 75cm, 85cm (approx. equivalents: 2”, 6”, 10”, 14”, 18”, 22”, 26”, 30”, 33”) every 15 minutes for three weeks following treatment with control or with irrigation water compositions comprising the irrigation aid of the present disclosure. [0035] FIGS.7A-7C are plots and insets showing the %soil-water at 10 cm depth from the surface as measured electronically and automatically every 15 minutes. FIG.7A shows the running % soil-water at 10 cm depth for control (top plot; “GSP” = control, i.e., no irrigation aid treatment) and irrigation aid treatment of the present disclosure (bottom plot; “IRM 3”). The average %soil-water at 10 cm over the several weeks is shown in FIG.7A as 37.49% for control (top plot) and 43.92% for irrigation aid treatment of the present disclosure (bottom plot). In addition to overall differences in %soil-water between control and treatment with the irrigation aid of the present disclosure, significant differences can be observed over certain shorter time periods. A dramatic difference can be seen over several days in May. The slope of %soil-water change is distinctly steeper with the irrigation aid of the present disclosure (see blown-up insets of control and irrigation aid of the present disclosure plots respectively (FIG.7B and FIG.7C). Since rapid water removal from the soil-water-plant system is almost solely due to plant root water uptake, the steeper slope indicates a significant increase in plant root water uptake. The graph of the irrigation aid treatment is steeper showing that it significantly enhances plant root water uptake. [0036] FIG.8 is a plot showing the %soil-water measured at 50 cm and 10 cm depths from the surface for control (top plot; “GSP”, i.e., irrigation without irrigation aid of the present disclosure) and irrigation aid treatment of the present disclosure(bottom plot; “IRM 3”). Observing these two plots reveals a distinctive difference. Without treatment with the irrigation aid of the present disclosure, the %soil-water at 50 cm remains relatively constant at around 45%. Over the same time period, the %soil-water at the same depth with the irrigation aid of the present disclosure remains between 25% and 35% indicating that treatment retains soil-water in the upper depths (where plant roots are most prevalent). This is consistent with the observation that there is more %soil-water on average at 10cm (44%) with irrigation aid treatment than with no irrigation aid treatment (37.5%). [0037] FIGS.9A-9E are successive plots showing the %soil-water over several weeks in an irrigated corn field at one location and each of several successive depths from the soil surface: 10 cm (FIG.9A), 20 cm (FIG.9B), 30 cm (FIG.9C), 40 cm (FIG.9D), and 50 cm
(FIG.9E) for control with no irrigation aid treatment (top plots; Good Standard Practice (“GSP”)) and irrigation aid treatment of the present disclosure (bottom plots; “IRM 3”). Average %soil-water (in cm) for all depths and over the several weeks is shown in each of FIGS.9A-9E. The %soil-water average over many weeks (measured in 15-minute increments) is higher with the irrigation aid treatment of the present disclosure than control at 10 cm (44% vs 37.5%), 20 cm (42.3% vs 38.2%), 30 cm (43% vs 36.4%) indicating the irrigation aid of the present disclosure’s effect of water retention in the soil rootzone. At 40 cm the treatment and control show similar %soil-water average (40.7% vs 49.3%) and at 50 cm the %soil-water average is greater for control (47%) than irrigation aid treatment (32.3%) indicating the result of much reduced water retention in upper depths with control. This is all particularly relevant to plant growth since the upper depths (i.e., 30 cm and less) is the region where plant roots are predominant. [0038] FIGS.10A-10B are bar graphs showing the chlorophyll content index (FIG. 10A) and yield in bushels/acre (FIG.10B) in corn plants irrigated with irrigation water formulations of the present disclosure (irrigation water formulations U, V, W, X, and Y) and a control irrigation water formulation. DETAILED DESCRIPTION Definitions [0039] Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions and embodiments described in this and other sections are intended to be applicable to all embodiments and aspects of the present application herein described for which they are suitable as would be understood by a person skilled in the art. [0040] Singular forms “a”, “an”, and “the” include plural references unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, a reference to “a method” includes one or more methods, and/or steps of the type described herein and/or which will become apparent to those persons skilled in the art upon reading this disclosure. In another example, reference to “a compound” includes both a single compound and a plurality of different compounds. [0041] The term “about” or “approximately” includes being within a statistically meaningful range of a value. Such a range can be within an order of magnitude, preferably within 50%, more preferably within 20%, still more preferably within 10%, and even more preferably within 5% of a given value or range. The allowable variation encompassed by the
term “about” or “approximately” depends on the particular system under study, and can be readily appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art. [0042] The term “and/or” as used herein means that the listed items are present, or used, individually or in combination. In effect, this term means that “at least one of” or “one or more” of the listed items is used or present. [0043] As will be understood by one skilled in the art, for any and all purposes, such as in terms of providing a written description, all ranges disclosed herein also encompass any and all possible subranges and combinations of subranges thereof. Any listed range can be easily recognized as sufficiently describing and enabling the same range being broken down into at least equal halves, thirds, quarters, fifths, tenths, and so on. As a non-limiting example, each range discussed herein can be readily broken down into a lower third, middle third and upper third, and so on. As will also be understood by one skilled in the art all language such as “up to,” “at least,” and the like include the number recited and refer to ranges which can be subsequently broken down into subranges as discussed above. Finally, as will be understood by one skilled in the art, a range includes each individual member. [0044] In understanding the scope of the present application, the term “comprising” and its derivatives, as used herein, are intended to be open ended terms that specify the presence of the stated features, elements, components, groups, integers, and/or steps, but do not exclude the presence of other unstated features, elements, components, groups, integers and/or steps. The foregoing also applies to words having similar meanings such as the terms, “including”, “involving”, “having”, and their derivatives. The term “consisting” and its derivatives, as used herein, are intended to be closed terms that specify the presence of the stated features, elements, components, groups, integers, and/or steps, but exclude the presence of other unstated features, elements, components, groups, integers and/or steps. The term “consisting essentially of”, as used herein, is intended to specify the presence of the stated features, elements, components, groups, integers, and/or steps as well as those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of features, elements, components, groups, integers, and/or steps. In embodiments or claims where the term comprising (or the like) is used as the transition phrase, such embodiments can also be envisioned with replacement of the term “comprising” with the terms “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of.” The methods, kits, systems, and/or compositions of the present disclosure can comprise, consist essentially of, or consist of, the components disclosed. [0045] In embodiments comprising an “additional” or “second” component, the second component as used herein is different from the other components or first component.
A “third” component is different from the other, first, and second components, and further enumerated or “additional” components are similarly different. [0046] The term “plant” when used herein includes live plants and living plant parts, including fresh fruit, vegetables, and seeds. Likewise, the term “plant” when used herein encompasses whole plants, ancestors, and progeny of plants and plant parts, including seeds, shoots, stalks, leaves, roots (including tubers), flowers and tissues and organs.Certain terms employed in the specification, examples, and claims are collected herein. Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used in this disclosure have the same meanings as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this disclosure belongs. [0047] Preferences and options for a given aspect, feature, embodiment, or parameter of the disclosure should, unless the context indicates otherwise, be regarded as having been disclosed in combination with any and all preferences and options for all other aspects, features, embodiments, and parameters of the disclosure. Soil/Root/Water Systems [0048] Plant roots, growing in moist soil appears to be a simple configuration of soil, water, and roots . This simplicity carries through to irrigation: plants need water to survive and grow; when there’s not enough water for the plants, irrigation water is applied to the soil, resulting in plant survival, growth, and crop yield. However, upon closer inspection it becomes quickly apparent that the simple system is not simple, at all. Soils are highly complex systems in their own right – differing greatly in their minerology, chemistry, and physics, particle size, and spatial heterogeneity. Water in soil exhibits a wide range of properties depending on the soil pore size, soil chemistry, water chemistry, soil layers, and intrinsic hydrology of a site. Roots are also highly complex, differing from species-to- species. Some species’ roots are well-adapted to root-zone (“rhizosphere”) regimes of low water content (e.g., desert plants), while others have evolved in highly wet soils (e.g., marsh plants). Roots differ in their water-related physiology, their physical structure (i.e., size, surface area, penetration depth, etc), and their ability to acquire nutrients from the soil-water system. [0049] All plants require water in the rhizosphere to survive and grow. While it is natural to assume that plants need copious amounts of water, and that irrigation is best accomplished by erring on the side of applying too much rather than too little water for a crop – this runs counter to a fundamental fact: roots respire (i.e., consume O₂/emit CO₂); they are aerobic creatures. Roots must have oxygen to function – or they will “drown”. In addition,
for some plant species, too much water leads to drastically increased microbial disease of the root. Clearly, plants generally require a “Goldilocks” amount of water in the rhizosphere – not too much/not too little. [0050] An additional factor of high complexity in the soil/root/water system is the soil-water ionic chemistry. This chemistry has a direct impact on root and overall plant physiology since almost all plant nutrients are acquired by the plant root from this pool of aqueous ions. These ionic nutrients include nitrate (NO₃), phosphate (PO₄), potassium ion (K), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), boron (B), molybdenum (Mo), chlorine (Cl), and silicon (Si). The concentration of these ions in any soil-water solution is a highly complex dynamic that depends on various factors such as the minerology/chemistry of the solid soil particles, intrinsic soil-water chemistry, and the uptake of nutrient ions by plant roots. The amount and availability of plant nutrient ions in any soil system is always in a state of some dynamic equilibrium that is dependent on these factors. A fundamental soil property defining the availability dynamic plant ionic nutrients is the “cation exchange capacity” (CEC). CEC is a measure of the total negative charges in a soil system that adsorb plant nutrient cations such as calcium (Ca
2+), magnesium (Mg
2+) and potassium (K
+). The CEC of a soil describes its capacity to supply nutrient cations to the soil-water solution for plant uptake. [0051] As a result of all these interactive complex factors, it is necessary to consider plant roots growing in moist soil as an interactive and dynamic “soil/water/nutrient/oxygen/root complex”. [0052] An additional layer of complexity in the soil/water/root system involves the movement of water in the “x-y-z” directions of the soil subsurface. Depending on the intrinsic chemistry and physical properties of the solid soil material (and organic matter), subsurface soil will either repel or attract water in the soil pores. Significant heterogeneity of subsurface zones of water repellency or attraction typically exist in most crop fields. Such heterogeneity produce flow patterns of subsurface flow in which some zones receive significant amounts of water flow while repellent zone have much less. This heterogeneity can have large impacts on crop irrigation since achieving sufficient water levels in repellent zones requires application of too much water in the attractive zones – resulting in a general waste of irrigation water. In addition, soil water repellency is often an issue on the soil surface; repellency of surface soil results in very slow penetration rates leading to high water loss through evaporation.
[0053] Soil water repellency (SWR) results in suboptimal plant growth and excessive irrigation water use and is a widespread problem in agriculture (Lehrsch et al, “Surfactant and Irrigation Effects on Wettable Soils: Runoff, Erosion, and Water Retention Responses,” Hydrol. Process.25:766–777 (2011), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety). SWR affects the “plant available water capacity” (PAWC) of a crop field or turf area. This PAWC is a function of the available water in the plant rhizosphere and has two dimensions: a vertical in which soil water moves down from the surface primarily by gravity, and a horizontal or lateral distribution dimension. This lateral movement of soil water is important but often neglected. In many soils, varying zones of SWR create a heterogenous distribution of water content in the subsurface. Water flows to areas of low SWR and flows away from high SWR zones. This horizontal patchiness of water distribution/content can have a significant impact on PAWC across all the plants in a crop. This differential flow of subsurface water, called “preferential flow” impacts crop yield (Dekker et al., “The Impact of Water Repellency on Soil Moisture Variability and Preferential Flow,” Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J., 9:498–505 (2001), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety). Methods of Irrigating a Plant Growth Medium [0054] As described in more detail below, aspects of the present disclosure generally encompass methods of making and using an irrigation water composition for improved water infiltration, where the improved water infiltration is obtained through introduction of the irrigation water composition to a plant growth medium. The term water infiltration refers to the penetration of an irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure into a plant growth medium (e.g., a plot of soil) during irrigation. [0055] One aspect of the present disclosure is directed to a method of irrigating a plant growth medium. This method involves providing a plant growth medium and blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition, where the irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 80.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II),
zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. This method further involves irrigating the plant growth medium with the irrigation water composition. [0056] In some embodiments, the irrigation additive composition may comprise 30.0 wt%, 31.0 wt%, 32.0 wt%, 33.0 wt%, 34.0 wt%, 35.0 wt%, 36.0 wt%, 37.0 wt%, 38.0 wt%, 39.0 wt%, 40.0 wt%, 41.0 wt%, 42.0 wt%, 43.0 wt%, 44.0 wt%, 45.0 wt%, 46.0 wt%, 47.0 wt%, 48.0 wt%, 49.0 wt%, 50.0 wt%, 51.0 wt%, 52.0 wt%, 53.0 wt%, 54.0 wt%, 55.0 wt%, 56.0 wt%, 57.0 wt%, 58.0 wt%, 59.0 wt%, 60.0 wt%, 61.0 wt%, 62.0 wt%, 63.0 wt%, 64.0 wt%, 65.0 wt%, 66.0 wt%, 67.0 wt%, 68.0 wt%, 69.0 wt%, 70.0 wt%, 71.0 wt%, 72.0 wt%, 73.0 wt%, 74.0 wt%, 75.0 wt%, 76.0 wt%, 77.0 wt%, 78.0 wt%, 79.0 wt%, 80.0 wt%, or any amount there between of the thickener. For example, the irrigation additive composition may comprise between 70.0 wt% to 80.0 wt% of the thickener. [0057] In some embodiments, the irrigation additive composition comprises 5.0 wt%, 6.0 wt%, 7.0 wt%, 8.0 wt%, 9.0 wt%, 10.0 wt%, 11.0 wt%, 12.0 wt%, 13.0 wt%, 14.0 wt%, 15.0 wt%, 16.0 wt%, 17.0 wt%, 18.0 wt%, 19.0 wt%, 20.0 wt%, 21.0 wt%, 22.0 wt%, 23.0 wt%, 24.0 wt%, 25.0 wt%, 26.0 wt%, 27.0 wt%, 28.0 wt%, 29.0 wt%, 30.0 wt%, 31.0 wt%, 32.0 wt%, 33.0 wt%, 34.0 wt%, 35.0 wt%, 36.0 wt%, 37.0 wt%, 38.0 wt%, 39.0 wt%, 40.0 wt%, 41.0 wt%, 42.0 wt%, 43.0 wt%, 44.0 wt%, 45.0 wt%, 46.0 wt%, 47.0 wt%, 48.0 wt%, 49.0 wt%, 50.0 wt%, 51.0 wt%, 52.0 wt%, 53.0 wt%, 54.0 wt%, 55.0 wt%, 56.0 wt%, 57.0 wt%, 58.0 wt%, 59.0 wt%, 60.0 wt%, or any amount there between of the metal ion complexing agent. For example, the irrigation additive composition may comprise between 5.0 to 50.0 wt%, 15.0 to 60.0 wt%, 15.0 to 50.0 wt%, 15.0 to 40.0 wt%, 15.0 to 30.0 wt%, or 15.0 wt% to 20.0 wt% of the metal ion complexing agent. [0058] In some embodiments, the method of irrigating a plant growth medium according to the present disclosure involves providing a plant growth medium and blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition, where the irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 80.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II),
calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 50.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0059] In some embodiments, the method of irrigating a plant growth medium according to the present disclosure involves providing a plant growth medium and blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition, where the irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0060] As used herein, the term “plant growth medium” refers to any medium suitable for growing plants and/or any medium suitable for sowing seeds. Suitable plant growth mediums include, without limitation, organic materials (e.g., peat moss, softwood bark, compost, manure, coconut coir, worm castings, kenaf, bone meal, blood meal, fish meal, feather meal, fish emulsion, soybean meal, alfalfa meal, cotton seed meal, kelp and seaweed, wood ash), non-organic materials (e.g., clay minerals such as zeolite, bentonite, and kaolinite; soil, sand, grit, gravel, perlite, vermiculite, expanded polystyrene), and combinations of organic and non-organic materials. [0061] In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, the plant growth medium is soil. The soil may be selected from the group consisting of sandy soil, silty soil, clay soil, organic soil (e.g., peat, muck, mucky peat), loamy soil, chalk soil, and mixtures thereof. [0062] Sandy soils are typically of a gravel texture and are formed from weathered rocks such as limestone, quartz, granite, and shale. Sandy soils can include sufficient to large amounts of organic matter, which makes sandy soils relatively easy to cultivate. [0063] Silty soils generally consist of minerals (primarily quartz) and fine organic particles and are more nutritious than sandy soils that provide good drainage. When dry, the
silty soil has a smooth texture and looks like black sand. Its unobvious soil structure means that it is easy to till when wet and is able to retain water well. [0064] Clay (or cohesive) soils are generally sticky, lumpy and soft when wet, but they generally form hard lumps when dry. The clay soil is composed of very fine particles with few voids, so that it is difficult to cultivate and generally has poor drainage conditions, and it is also easy to accumulate water in spring. Blue or gray clays are less permeable to air and must be loosened to support healthy growth. The red color in the clay soil indicates a “loose” soil that is well permeable and drains well. Due to the high level of nutrients in the clay, the plants can grow well if the drainage is appropriate. [0065] Organic soils vary in organic matter content from 20 to 95%. They generally are classified on the degree of decomposition of the organic deposits. The terms muck, peat, and mucky peat are commonly used. Muck is well-decomposed organic material. Peat is raw, undecomposed, very fibrous organic material in which the original fibers constitute all the material. Since the acidity of peat soil inhibits the decomposition process, it generally contains more organic matter than other soils. Such soils contain fewer nutrients than many other soils and are prone to excessive water retention. [0066] Loamy soil is typically a combination of approximately 40% sand, 40% silt, and 20% clay. Loamy soil can range from easily farmed organic rich fertile soil to densely compacted turf. Typically, loamy soil drains water but retains water vapor and is rich in nutrients. [0067] Chalk soil is generally alkaline and may contain stones of various sizes. This type of soil dries quickly and readily traps trace elements such as iron and manganese. This makes the plants unable to obtain nutrients, which leads to poor growth and yellowing of the leaves. Chalk soil is generally considered to be of poor quality and requires the application of large quantities of fertilizers and other soil amendments. [0068] In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, one or more plants and/or plant seeds are growing in the plant growth medium. [0069] In some embodiments, the plant is a crop plant. As used herein, the term “crop plant” or grammatical variations thereof refers to and includes plants grown for the purpose of removing one or more plant parts, when such parts are considered a useful product. [0070] Crop plants suitable for use in the present disclosure are, for example, those with plant parts that are edible, those with plant parts that are non-edible but useful for some other purpose, and combinations thereof. Also contemplated as suitable crop plants are those
from which useful materials can be extracted; such useful materials may be, for example, edible materials, raw materials for manufacturing, medicinally useful materials, and materials useful for other purposes. [0071] Further contemplated as suitable crop plants are those that yield plant parts that are useful for their beauty and/or ornamental properties. Such ornamental plant parts include, for example, flowers and other ornamental plant parts such as, for example, ornamental leaves. Some of such plants produce useful bulbs. In some embodiments, an entire ornamental plant is considered to be the useful plant part. [0072] Also suitable are crop plants that produce edible plant parts. Crop plants that produce all types of edible plant parts are contemplated as suitable for use in the present disclosure. [0073] Suitable crop plants for present disclosure may be crop plants that produce fruits, vegetables, spices, herbs, or plants or plant parts grown for ornamental use. In some embodiments, crop plants produce fruits or vegetables. In some embodiments, crop plants produce vegetables. [0074] Additional suitable plants and/or plant seeds for use in the methods of the present disclosure include, without limitation, plants or seeds of plants that bear fruit, plants or seeds of plants that bear nuts, plants that grow seeds, plants or seeds of flowering plants, plants or seeds of ornamental plants, plants or seeds of legumes, and other types of plants and plant seeds. [0075] In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, the one or more plants and/or plant seeds may be selected from the group consisting of monocots, dicots, solanaceous vegetable crops (e.g., tomato, pepper, eggplant, white and red potato, and tomatillo), and tree crops. [0076] In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, the one or more plants and/or plant seeds may be selected from the group consisting of pasture (e.g., clover, rye, bermuda, and other grasses), almonds and pistachios, alfalfa, citrus and subtropical fruits (e.g., grapefruit, lemons, oranges, dates, avocados, olives, jojoba), sugar beets, deciduous fruits (e.g., apples, apricots, walnuts, cherries, peaches, nectarines, pears, plums, prunes, and kiwis), cotton, onions and garlic, potatoes, and vineyards (e.g., table, raisin and wine grapes). [0077] In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, the one or more plants and/or plant seeds may be selected from the group consisting of canola, alfalfa, rice, wheat, barley, rye, cotton, sunflower, peanut, corn, potato, sweet potato, bean,
pea, chicory, lettuce, endive, cabbage, brussel sprout, beet, parsnip, cauliflower, broccoli, turnip, radish, spinach, onion, garlic, eggplant, pepper, celery, carrot, squash, pumpkin, zucchini, cucumber, apple, pear, melon, citrus, strawberry, grape, raspberry, pineapple, soybean, tobacco, tomato, sorghum, and sugarcane. [0078] In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, the one or more plants and/or plant seeds may be selected from the group consisting of container- grown ornamentals, e.g., annuals, perennials, shrubs, etc. [0079] In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, the one or more plants and/or plant seeds is a flowering plant. [0080] In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, the one or more plants and/or plant seeds is a tree. Suitable trees include, without limitation, any citrus tree (e.g., a lemon tree, a lime tree, an orange tree, a grapefruit tree, a tangerine tree, a bitter orange tree, a blood orange tree, a mandarin orange tree, a tangerine tree, a pummelo tree, a tangelo tree, an Ugli fruit tree, a yuzu tree, a calamondin tree, a citron tree, a Persian lime tree, a key lime tree), any stone fruit tree (e.g., a mango tree, an olive tree, a coconut tree, an apricot tree, a peach tree, a plum tree), any pome fruit tree (e.g., an apple tree, a pear tree, an Asian pear tree, a quince tree), any berry tree (e.g., an avocado tree, a banana tree, a mulberry tree, an acai berry tree, an elderberry tree, a goji berry tree), and any nut tree (e.g., almond tree, walnut tree, a pistachio tree, chestnut tree, hazelnut tree, a pecan tree), as well as any other tree, vine, or woody plant. [0081] In some embodiments, the one or more plants or plant seeds may be Cucumis sativus or Zea mays. [0082] As used herein, the term “irrigation” refers to the controlled application of water for agricultural purposes through manmade systems to supply water requirements not satisfied by rainfall. The methods according to the present disclosure may be carried out by any method of irrigation including, but not limited to, surface irrigation, sprinkle irrigation, micro irrigation, and/or subirrigation (seepage irrigation). [0083] Each irrigation method and irrigation system has a specific site applicability, capability, and limitations. Broad factors that should be considered are crops to be grown, topography or physical site conditions, water supply, climate, energy available, chemigation, operation and management skills, environmental concerns, soils, farming equipment, and costs. [0084] Surface irrigation (also referred to as flood irrigation) is a traditional irrigation method and remains one of the most commonly used irrigation methods. Surface irrigation
refers to an irrigation system in which water is applied at a specific location and allowed to flow freely over a surface, thereby applying and distributing the necessary water to refill a crop root zone. Surface irrigation can be contrasted to sprinkle or drip irrigation where water is distributed over the field in pressurized pipes and then applied through sprinklers or drippers to the surface. In any embodiment of the methods disclosed herein, said irrigating is carried out by surface irrigation. [0085] Surface irrigation can be classified as basin irrigation, border irrigation, furrow irrigation, and wild flooding (see, e.g., “Chapter 4: Surface Irrigation,” in Part 623 Irrigation National Engineering Handbook from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (2012), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety). Basin irrigation is distinguished by a completely level field with perimeter dikes to control and/or prevent runoff. Furrow irrigation is at the opposite extreme of the array of surface irrigation configurations from basis. Rather than flooding the entire field, small channels called furrows, and sometimes creases, rills, or corrugations, are formed and irrigated. The amount of water per unit width on a furrow-irrigated field may only be 20% of the water flowing over a similar width in a basin. Infiltration is two-dimensional through the wetted perimeter rather than a vertical one-dimensional intake. Furrows may be blocked at the end to prevent runoff. Border irrigation looks like basin irrigation and operated like furrow irrigation. Borders are irrigated by flooding strips of land, rectangular shape and cross leveled, bordered by dikes. Water is applied at a rate sufficient to move it down the strip in a uniform sheet and may be blocked at the downstream end to prevent runoff. Border strips having no downfield slope are referred to as level border systems. [0086] In sprinkle irrigation, water is applied at the point of use by a system of nozzles (impact and gear driven sprinkler or spray heads) with water delivered to the sprinkler heads by surface and buried pipelines, or by both (see, e.g., “Chapter 5: Selecting an Irrigation Method,” in Part 652 Irrigation National Engineering Handbook from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety). In contrast to surface irrigation techniques, with sprinkle irrigation, water is applied so ponding does not occur or is only temporary. In any embodiment of the methods disclosed herein, irrigating is carried out by sprinkle irrigation. [0087] Sprinkler irrigation system examples include solid set (portable and permanent), handmove laterals, side roll (wheel-line) laterals, end tow laterals, hose fed (pull) laterals, perforated pipe laterals, high and low pressure center pivots and linear (lateral) move
laterals, and stationary or traveling gun sprinklers and booms (see, e.g., “Chapter 6: Sprinkle Irrigation Systems,” in Part 652 Irrigation National Engineering Handbook from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety). Low Energy Precision Application (LEPA), and Low Pressure In Canopy (LPIC), systems are included with sprinkler systems as an operational modification to center pivot and linear move systems. Pressure for sprinkler systems is generally provided by pumping, powered by electric motors and diesel, natural gas, L P gas, or gasoline engines. Where sufficient elevation drop is available, sprinkler systems can be operated using gravity to provide the necessary operating pressure. [0088] Micro irrigation is the broad classification of frequent, low volume, low pressure application of water on or beneath the soil surface by drippers, drip emitters, spaghetti tube, subsurface or surface drip tube, basin bubblers, and spray or mini sprinkler systems. It is also referred to as drip or trickle irrigation (see, e.g., “Chapter 6: Irrigation System Design,” in Part 652 Irrigation National Engineering Handbook from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety). In micro irrigation, water is applied as discrete or continuous drops, tiny streams, or miniature spray through drip emitters or spray heads placed along a water delivery line called a lateral or feeder line. Typically, water is dispensed from a pipe distribution network under low pressure (5 to 20 lb/in
2) in a predetermined pattern. The outlet device that controls water release is called an emitter. Water moves through the soil from the emission point to soil areas of higher water tension by both capillary and gravity forces. The amount of soil wetted depends on soil characteristics, length of irrigation period, emitter discharge, and number and spacing of emitters. Number and spacing of emitters are dependent on the spacing and size of plants being irrigated. If water management is adequate, line source emitters can be used for row crops. Micro irrigation can efficiently distribute an otherwise limited water supply. In any embodiment of the methods disclosed herein, said irrigating is carried out by drip irrigation. [0089] Exemplary micro irrigation systems include, without limitation, point-source emitters (drip/trickle/bubbler), surface or subsurface line-source emitter systems, basin bubblers, and spray or mini sprinkler systems. In the point-source form of micro irrigation, water is applied to the soil surface as discrete or continuous drops, tiny streams, or low volume fountain through small openings. Discharge is in units of gallons per hour (gph) or gallons per minute (gpm) over a specified pressure range. Discharge rates typically range from 0.5 gallon per hour to nearly 0.5 gallon per minute for individual drip emitters. The
basin bubbler micro irrigation system applies water to the soil surface in small fountain type streams. The streams have a point discharge rate greater than that for a typical drip or line source system, but generally less than 1 gallon per minute. The discharge rate normally exceeds the infiltration rate of the soil, so small basins are used to contain the water until infiltration occurs. Discharge is generally from a small diameter (3/8 to 1/2 inch) flexible tube that is attached to a buried or surface lateral and located at each plant vine or tree. The typical emitter device is not used, and discharge pressures are very low (< 5 lb/in
2). With spray or mini sprinkler micro irrigation systems, water is applied to the soil surface as spray droplets from small, low-pressure heads. The typical wetted diameter is 2 to 7 feet. Discharge rates are generally less than 30 gallons per hour (0.5 gpm). The wetted pattern is larger than that of typical drip emitter devices, and generally fewer application devices are needed per plant. [0090] In subirrigation, water is made available to the crop root system by upward capillary flow through the soil profile from a controlled water table (see, e.g., “Chapter 6: Irrigation System Design,” in Part 652 Irrigation National Engineering Handbook from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety). A subirrigation system can lower an existing water table, maintain an existing water table, or raise a water table to a desirable elevation. A water table is generally held at a constant elevation during a crop growing season but can be fluctuated. Water from a water table is supplied to plant roots by upward capillary water movement through the soil profile, also referred to as upflux. The water table may be controlled by: providing subsurface drainage to lower or maintain an existing water table, or by removing water from the soil profile using buried laterals; providing controlled drainage by capturing rainfall to raise a water table to a desired elevation at or above the buried laterals; and introducing irrigation water via a buried lateral system to raise or maintain a water table at desired elevation at or above the buried laterals. In any embodiment of the methods disclosed herein, irrigating is carried out by subirrigation. [0091] Without being bound by theory, irrigating the plant growth medium with the irrigation water compositions according to the present disclosure provide an increased irrigation efficiency as compared to when said irrigating is carried out in the absence of the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the increased irrigation efficiency is measured in terms of crop water-use efficiency, which is defined as the amount of vegetative dry matter produced per unit volume of water taken up by a crop from a soil. The crop-water use efficiency may be increased by at least 10%, 15%,
20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, or more. [0092] In other embodiments, the increased irrigation efficiency is measured in terms of soil moisture, which may be defined as the amount of water that is accessible by the roots of plants. In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, irrigating the plant growth medium with the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure may be carried out to increase the soil moisture content may by at least 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, or more, as compared to when irrigation is carried out in the absence of the irrigation water compositions disclosed herein. [0093] In some embodiments, the increased irrigation efficiency is measured in terms of the water-retention capacity of soil. The term “water-retention capacity” refers to a soil’s ability to retail water. In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, irrigating the plant growth medium with the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure may be carried out to increase soil water-retention in by at least 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, or more, as compared to when irrigation is carried out in the absence of the irrigation water compositions disclosed herein. [0094] The term “field capacity” refers to the maximum amount of water that a given soil can retain. In contrast, the term “wilting point” refers to a soil so dry that plants cannot liberate the remaining moisture from the soil particles. Available water is that which plants and/or seeds can utilize from the soil within the range between field capacity and wilting point. In some embodiments of the methods according to the present disclosure, irrigating the plant growth medium with the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure may be carried out to increase field capacity by at least 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, or more, as compared to when irrigation is carried out in the absence of the irrigation water compositions disclosed herein. [0095] As a result of the increased irrigation efficiency provided by the irrigation water compositions according to the present disclosure, soil irrigated with said irrigation water compositions support plant seed germination and/or plant growth for a longer period of time, as compared to when irrigation is carried out in the absence of the irrigation water compositions disclosed herein. Likewise, soil irrigated with said irrigation water
compositions prevents wilting between irrigation events for a longer period of time, as compared to when irrigation is carried out in the absence of the irrigation water compositions disclosed herein. Methods of Improving Plant Growth Conditions [0096] As described herein, the methods according to the present disclosure may be used to enhance irrigation water use, thereby improving various plant growth conditions. Exemplary plant growth conditions include, without limitation, the following. ^ Increased water penetration rate into the soil surface. Observations of dramatically reduced surface “puddling” in California cucumber drip irrigation trial. ^ Increased water retention in the rhizosphere, and generally reduced leaching of water and ions (the rhizosphere = upper inches of the soil column containing most plant root biomass). Under conditions of water scarcity, the irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure produces increased %soil-water. ^ Reduces reduced leaching of plant nutrient ions. Observation of reduced soil/dye movement in soil column. ^ Increased water-use efficiency (i.e., “more crop per drop”): The irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure produced increased yield of crop per acre per amount of irrigation water (e.g., fruit/acre/gallon). ^ Enhanced lateral movement of water through the subsurface soil: The irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure enhance the lateral movement of water through subsurface soil. ^ Reduced variability of %soil-water over time: The irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure increase percent soil water over time, as compared to soil irrigated in the absence of a disclosed irrigation aid. ^ Consistent lower %soil-water @ shallow soil depths: The irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure exhibit higher %soil-water, e.g., at 65 cm, 75 cm, and 85 cm depths. ^ Increased plant root uptake of soil-water at certain depths: The irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure may more than double root-uptake of water at, e.g., 25 cm depth in fields of growing corn ^ Increase in Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of soil system: The chemistry of the irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure has an intrinsic CEC which will contributes to the overall CEC of the soil system it is added to.
^ Retention of ions in the rhizosphere: In soil of growing corn field, generally higher ion concentration (conductance) in the soil-water at various soil depths also generally higher ion concentrations in soil-water at various soil depths in cucumber field. The irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure produce higher soil nitrogen (in ppm) at 5” & 10” depths and higher soil phosphorus and potassium at 5”, which indicates retention of P and K ions in upper soil column. [0097] These various phenomena act in some combination to increase the water-use efficiency of irrigation, producing a significant reduction in overall irrigation water use, and an optimization of the soil/water/oxygen/nutrient/plant dynamic. This results in increased crop yields and/or same yields with less irrigation water use. Evidence for the irrigation water of the present disclosure’s optimization of crop plant performance (corn and cucumber) by adding the irrigation water of the present disclosure to applied irrigation water is summarized as follows: ^ Increase in root biomass (root mass). In a field of growing cucumber plants, irrigation with the irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure increased rootmass by 65%, as compared to irrigation in the absence of the irrigation aid of the present disclosure (see Example 7). ^ Increase in plant leaf chlorophyll content. In fields of growing corn plants, irrigation with the irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure increased Chlorophyll Content Index (CCI) of corn plant leaves by 15.2-35.5% (Example 5) and 33% (Example 6), as compared to irrigation in the absence of the irrigation aid of the present disclosure. ^ Increased yield. In a field of growing cucumber plants, irrigation with the irrigation water compositions of the present disclosure increased the number of fruit/acre by 31% and the amount of lbs/acre by 23%, as compared to irrigation in the absence of the irrigation aid of the present disclosure (see Example 1). [0098] Thus, another aspect of the present disclosure relates to a method of improving plant growth conditions, where the plant growth conditions are selected from the group consisting of: (1) increasing harvested yield of a plant part; (2) increasing irrigation efficiency; (3) increased water penetration rate into a growth medium surface; (4) increased water retention in a plant-growth medium rhizosphere; (5) enhanced lateral movement of water through subsurface growth medium; (6) reduced variability of percent growth medium water content over time; (7) reduced percent growth medium water content at shallow growth
medium depths; (8) increased plant root uptake of growth medium water; (9) increased cation exchange capacity of a growth medium system; (10) retention of ions in a plant-growth medium rhizosphere; (11) enhanced activity of beneficial growth medium microbes; (12) increased root biomass; and (13) increased plant leaf chlorophyll content. This method involves: (a) providing a plant and/or a plant seed in a plant growth medium; (b) blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition, said irrigation additive composition comprising: (i) 30.0 to 80.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, wherein the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent; (c) irrigating the plant growth medium with the irrigation water composition; (d) growing the plant or the plant seed to maturity in the plant growth medium and (e) harvesting a plant part from the mature plant, where said method, respectively, results, compared to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive, in: for (1), the harvested yield of the plant part is increased; for (2), the irrigation efficiency is increased; for (3), the water penetration rate into the growth medium surface is increased; for (4), the water retention in the plant growth medium rhizosphere is increased; for (5), the lateral movement of water through subsurface growth medium is increased; for (6), the variability of percent growth medium-water content over time is reduced; for (7), the percent growth medium-water content at shallow soil depths is reduced; for (8), the plant root uptake of growth medium water is increased; for (9), the cation exchange capacity of the growth medium system is increased; for (10), the retention of ions in the plant-growth medium rhizosphere is increased; for (11), the activity of beneficial growth medium microbes is increased; for (12), the root biomass is increased; and for (13), the plant leaf chlorophyll content is increased. [0099] In some embodiments, (b) blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition involves using an irrigation additive composition comprising: (i) 30.0 to 80.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a
hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, wherein the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 50.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0100] In some embodiments, (b) blending water with an irrigation additive composition to form an irrigation water composition involves using an irrigation additive composition comprising: (i) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, wherein the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0101] Suitable thickeners, water soluble divalent salts, metal ion complexing agents, and film forming agents for use in the methods according to the present disclosure are described in more detail infra. [0102] Suitable plant growth mediums for use in the methods according to the present disclosure are described in more detail infra. In some embodiments, the plant growth medium is soil. In accordance with such embodiments, the soil may be selected from the group consisting of sandy soil, silty soil, clay soil, peat soil, loamy soil, chalk soil, and mixtures thereof. [0103] The methods of increasing the harvested yield of a plant according to the present disclosure may be carried out by surface irrigation, sprinkle irrigation, micro irrigation, subirrigation, and combinations thereof. [0104] As used herein, the term “harvesting” or grammatical variations thereof means and includes an act of removing useful plant parts from a plant, e.g., a crop plant.
[0105] As used herein, the term “yield” refers to the amount of a mature plant part collected from a mature plant or a defined group of plants (e.g., a defined group of mature plants). In some embodiments, the term “defined group of plants” refers to a group of plants that occupies a certain area of ground (this definition is often used when plants are growing in a contiguous group in a field). In other embodiments, the term “defined group of plants” refers to a specific number of individually identified plants (e.g., a specific number of individually identified plants in a field, in a pot, in a greenhouse, or any combination thereof). [0106] The yield may be defined in a variety of ways. In the practice of the present disclosure, the yield may be measured, for example, by any of the following methods: weight, volume, number of harvested plant parts, or biomass. Also contemplated are methods in which the yield is measured as the amount in the crop of a specific constituent (such as, for example, sugar, starch, or protein). Further contemplated are methods in which the yield is measured as the amount of a certain characteristic (such as, for example, redness, which is sometimes used to measure the amount of a crop of tomatoes). Additionally contemplated are methods in which the yield is measured as the amount of a specific portion of the harvested plant part (such as, for example, the number of kernels or the weight of kernels, which are sometimes used to measure the amount of a crop of corn; or the weight of lint, which is sometimes used to measure the amount of a cotton crop). [0107] In some embodiments, the yield is defined as the crop amount per unit of area of land. That is, the land area from which the crop was harvested is measured, and the crop amount is divided by the land area to calculate the yield. For example, a yield may be reported as a weight per area (for example, kilograms per hectare). [0108] In some embodiments, the harvested plant parts that contribute to the yield are those plant parts that meet the minimum quality criteria that are appropriate for that type of plant part. That is, when plant parts are harvested from certain plants, the crop amount is, for example, the weight of the plant parts of acceptable quality that are harvested from those plants. Acceptable quality may be determined by any of the common criteria used by persons who harvest or handle the plant part of interest. Such criteria of acceptable quality of a plant part may be, for example, one or more of size, weight, firmness, resistance to bruising, flavor, sugar/starch balance, color, beauty, other quality criteria, or any combination thereof. Also contemplated as a criterion of quality, either alone or in combination with any of the foregoing criteria, is the time over which the plant part maintains its quality (as judged by any of the forgoing criteria).
[0109] A few illustrative (but not limiting) examples of yield are, for example, total weight of harvested plant part; total number of plant parts harvested; weight (or number) of harvested plant parts that each meet or exceed some minimum weight for that type of plant part; or weight (or number) of harvested plant parts that each meet or exceed some minimum quality criterion (e.g., color or flavor or texture or other criterion or combination of criteria) for that type of plant part; weight (or number) of harvested plant parts that are edible; or weight (or number) of harvested plant parts that are able to be sold. In each case, as defined herein above, the yield is the amount per unit area of land on which the plant part was grown. [0110] In some embodiments, the methods of the present disclosure increase the yield of a harvested plant part from a mature plant or a defined group of mature plants (e.g., a plot of mature plants, a field of mature plants, a greenhouse of mature plants), compared to the yield of the harvested plant part that would have been obtained from the mature plant or the defined group of mature plants if it had not been treated with the methods of the present disclosure. [0111] In some embodiments, said increase in (1) the harvested yield of the plant part, (2) the irrigation efficiency, (3) the water penetration rate into the growth medium surface, (4) the water retention in the plant growth medium rhizosphere, (5) the lateral movement of water through subsurface growth medium, (8) the plant root uptake of growth medium water, (9) the cation exchange capacity of the growth medium system, (10) the retention of ions in the plant-growth medium rhizosphere, (11) the activity of beneficial growth medium microbes, (12) the root biomass, and/or the plant leaf chlorophyll content is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive; and/or said decrease in (6) the variability of percent growth medium-water content over time and/or (7) the percent growth medium-water content at shallow soil depths is reduced by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. [0112] For example, in some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (1) increasing harvested yield of a plant part, the mature plant may have a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%,
85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. [0113] The increase in yield of the harvested plant part may be obtained in any of a wide variety of ways. For example, one way an increase yield of the harvested plant part may be obtained is that each plant may produce a greater number of useful plant parts. As another example, one way an increase in yield of harvested plant part may be obtained is that each useful plant part may have higher weight. As a third example, yield of a harvested plant part may increase when a larger number of potentially useful plant parts meets the minimum criteria for acceptable quality. Other ways of increasing the yield of a harvested plant part may also result from the practice of the present disclosure. Also contemplated are increases in yield of a harvested plant part that happen by any combination of ways. [0114] For example, in some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (2) increasing irrigation efficiency, the mature plant may have a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0115] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (3) increased water penetration rate into a growth medium surface, water penetration rate into the growth medium surface is increased compared to that obtained from a surface of a growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such increased water penetration rate into a growth medium surface may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such increased water penetration rate into a growth medium surface may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%,
50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0116] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (4) increased water retention in a plant growth medium rhizosphere, water retention in the plant growth medium rhizosphere is increased compared to that obtained from a rhizosphere of a plant grown in a plant growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such increased water retention in a plant growth medium rhizosphere may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such increased water retention in a plant growth medium rhizosphere may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0117] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (5) enhanced lateral movement of water through subsurface growth medium, the lateral movement of water through subsurface growth medium is increased compared to that observed in the subsurface of a growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such enhanced lateral movement of water through subsurface growth medium may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such enhanced lateral movement of water through subsurface growth medium may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that
obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0118] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (6) reduced variability of percent growth medium water content over time, the variability of percent growth medium water content over time is reduced compared to that observed in growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such reduced variability of percent growth medium water content over time may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such reduced variability of percent growth medium water content over time may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0119] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (7) reduced percent growth medium water content at shallow growth medium depths, the percent growth medium-water content at shallow soil depths is reduced compared to that observed in growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such reduced percent growth medium water content at shallow growth medium depths may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation
additive. Likewise, such reduced percent growth medium water content at shallow growth medium depths may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0120] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (8) increased plant root uptake of growth medium water, the plant root uptake of growth medium water is increased compared to that obtained from plant roots grown in growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such increased plant root uptake of growth medium water may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such increased plant root uptake of growth medium water may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0121] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (9) increased cation exchange capacity of a growth medium system, the cation exchange capacity of the growth medium system is increased compared to that obtained from a growth medium system subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such increased cation exchange capacity of a growth medium system may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said
irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such increased cation exchange capacity of a growth medium system may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0122] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (10) retention of ions in a plant growth medium rhizosphere, the retention of ions in the plant growth medium rhizosphere is increased compared to the retention of ions in a rhizosphere in a growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such increased retention of ions in the plant growth medium rhizosphere may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such increased retention of ions in the plant growth medium rhizosphere may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0123] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (11) enhanced activity of beneficial growth medium microbes, the activity of beneficial growth medium microbes is increased compared to the activity of beneficial growth medium microbes in a growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such enhanced activity of beneficial growth medium microbes may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%,
20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such enhanced activity of beneficial growth medium microbes may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0124] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (12) increased root biomass, the root biomass is increased compared to a root biomass obtained in a growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such increased root biomass may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such increased root biomass may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. [0125] In some embodiments, when the method of improving plant growth conditions involves (13) increased plant leaf chlorophyll content, the plant leaf chlorophyll content is increased compared to that obtained from a plant leaf of a plant grown in a plant growth medium subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Such increased plant leaf chlorophyll content may result in the mature plant having a yield of the harvested plant part which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%,
65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive. Likewise, such increased plant leaf chlorophyll content may result in the mature plant having a yield per unit volume of irrigation water compared to that obtained from plants subjected to said irrigating with irrigation water not containing said irrigation additive composition which is increased by at least 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%, 105%, 110%, 115%, 120%, or more. Irrigation Water Compositions [0126] Another aspect of the present disclosure relates to an irrigation water composition comprising less than 0.8 wt% of an irrigation additive composition and more than 99.2 wt% water, where the water is blended with the irrigation additive composition . The irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 80.0 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0127] In some embodiments, the irrigation water composition comprises less than 0.8 wt%, less than 0.7 wt%, less than 0.6 wt%, less than 0.5 wt%, less than 0.4 wt%, less than 0.3 wt%, less than 0.2 wt%, less than 0.1 wt%, less than 0.09 wt%, less than 0.08 wt%, less than 0.07 wt%, less than 0.06 wt%, less than 0.05 wt%, less than 0.04 wt%, less than 0.03 wt%, less than 0.02 wt%, less than 0.01 wt%, less than 0.009 wt%, less than 0.008 wt%, less than 0.007 wt%, less than 0.006 wt%, less than 0.005 wt%, less than 0.004 wt%, less than 0.003 wt%, less than 0.002 wt%, less than 0.001 wt%, less than 0.0009 wt%, less than 0.0008 wt%, less than 0.0007 wt%, less than 0.0006 wt%, less than 0.0005 wt%, less than 0.0004 wt%, less than 0.0003 wt%, less than 0.0002 wt%, less than 0.0001 wt%, or any amount there between of the irrigation additive composition.
[0128] In some embodiments, the irrigation water composition comprises more than 99.2 wt%, more than 99.3 wt%, more than 99.4 wt%, more than 99.5 wt%, more than 99.6 wt%, more than 99.7 wt%, more than 99.8 wt%, more than 99.9 wt%, more than 99.91 wt%, more than 99.92 wt%, more than 99.93 wt%, more than 99.94 wt%, more than 99.95 wt%, more than 99.96 wt%, more than 99.97 wt%, more than 99.98 wt%, more than 99.99 wt%, more than 99.991 wt%, more than 99.992 wt%, more than 99.993 wt%, more than 99.994 wt%, more than
wt%, more than 99.996 wt%, more than 99.997 wt%, more than 99.998 wt%, more than 99.999 wt%, more than 99.9991 wt%, more than 99.9992 wt%, more than 99.9993 wt%, more than 99.9994 wt%, more than 99.9995 wt%, more than 99.9996 wt%, more than 99.9997 wt%, more than 99.9998 wt%, more than 99.9999 wt%, or any amount there between of water. [0129] In some embodiments, the irrigation water composition comprises less than 0.8 wt% of an irrigation additive composition and more than 99.2 wt% water, where the water is blended with the irrigation additive composition. The irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 80.00 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II), copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 5.0 to 50.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0130] In some embodiments, the irrigation water composition comprises less than 0.8 wt% of an irrigation additive composition and more than 99.2 wt% water, where the water is blended with the irrigation additive composition. The irrigation additive composition comprises: (i) 30.0 to 60.00 wt% of a thickener selected from the group consisting of a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, a hydrophobically- modified polyether (HMPE) polymer, a hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymer, an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and cellulose ethers; (ii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a water soluble divalent salt, where the water soluble divalent salt comprises a divalent cation selected from the group consisting of barium (II), calcium (II), cobalt (II),
copper (II), iron (II), magnesium (II), manganese (II), strontium (II), zinc (II), and mixtures thereof; (iii) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a foam control agent; (iv) 30.0 to 60.0 wt% of a metal ion complexing agent; and (v) 0.5 to 5.0 wt% of a film forming agent. [0131] As used herein, the term “blending” refers to the combination or association of one or more components such that the separate components cannot be distinguished from each other. In some embodiments, blending the irrigation additive composition with water produces an aqueous blend. [0132] The term “aqueous” as applied to the irrigation water compositions according to the present disclosure means that water is present in an amount sufficient to at least dissolve the irrigation additive composition comprising the thickener, the water soluble divalent salt, the foam control agent, the metal ion complexing agent, and the film forming agent. In some embodiments of the compositions according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition is an aqueous blend. [0133] The irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure may be blended in an irrigation additive composition to water ratio of 1:125 to 1:30,000, 1:125 to 1:20,000, 1:125 to 1:20,000, 1:125 to 1:15,000, 1:125 to 1:10,000, 1:250 to 1:30,000, 1:250 to 1:25,000, 1:250 to 1:20,000, 1:250 to 1:15,000, 1:250 to 1:10,000, 1:500 to 1:30,000, 1:500 to 1:25,000, 1:500 to 1:20,000, 1:500 to 1:15,000, 1:500 to 1:10,000, 1:1,000 to 1:30,000, 1:1,000 to 1:25,000, 1:1,000 to 1:20,000, 1:1,000 to 1:15,000, 1:1,000 to 1:10,000, 1:5,000 to 1:30,000, 1:5,000 to 1:25,000, 1:5,000 to 1:20,000, 1:5,000 to 1:15,000, or 1:5,000 to 1:10,000. For example, the irrigation additive composition to water ratio may be 1:250, 1:500, 1:1,00, 1:2,000, 1:3,000, 1:4,000, 1:5,000; 1:6,000; 1:7,000; 1:8,000; 1:9,000; 1:10,000; 1:11,000; 1:12,000; 1:13,000; 1:14,000; 1:15,000; 1:16,000; 1:17,000; 1:18,000; 1:19,000; 1:20,000; 1:21,000; 1:22,000; 1:23,000; 1:24,000; 1:25,000; 1:26,000; 1:27,000; 1:28,000; 1: 29,000; 1:30,000; or any ratio there between. In some embodiments, said irrigation additive composition and said water are blended in an irrigation additive composition to water ratio of 1:10,000 to 1:20,000 or 1:25,000 to 1:30,000. [0134] In any embodiment of the methods and compositions according to the present disclosure, the water may be from any common water source, such as rivers, lakes, canals, dams, wells, rain, and groundwater, and can include, for example, any potable water, some non-potable waters, and recycled water, such as the water from run-off.
Compositions Suitable for Growing Plants [0135] A further aspect of the present disclosure relates to a composition suitable for growing plants comprising a plant growth medium and an irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure. [0136] Suitable plant growth mediums are described in detail supra. [0137] Suitable irrigation water compositions are described in detail supra. In some embodiments, the irrigation water composition is an aqueous blend of an irrigation additive composition according to the present disclosure and water, e.g., the irrigation additive composition may comprise a 1:250 to 1:30,000 ratio of the irrigation additive composition to water. [0138] In some embodiments of the methods and compositions according to the present disclosure, the thickener is a nature-based thickener. Nature-based thickeners comprise polysaccharide or amino acid building blocks and are generally water-soluble. Exemplary nature-based thickeners include, without limitation, cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose, and derivatives thereof. [0139] In some embodiments of the methods and compositions according to the present disclosure, the thickener is a synthetic, non-nature based thickener. Suitable synthetic non-nature based thickeners include, without limitation, hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymers, hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymers, hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymers, hydrophobically- modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymers, and alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymers. [0140] In some embodiments, the thickener is an associative thickener. As used herein, the term “associative thickener” refers to a water soluble polymer containing hydrophobic groups that interact with each other and the other elements of the composition to create a three-dimensional network. Exemplary associative thickeners include hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymers, hydrophobically- modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymers, hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymers, and hydrophobically modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymers, and mixtures thereof. [0141] Hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymers are commonly employed to modify the rheological properties of aqueous emulsion systems. Under the influence of a base organic or inorganic, the HASE particles gradually swell and expand to form a three-dimensional network by intermolecular hydrophobic aggregation
between HASE polymer chains and/or with components of the emulsion. This network, combined with the hydrodynamic exclusion volume created by the expanded HASE chains, produces the desired thickening effect. This network is sensitive to applied stress, breaks down under shear, and recovers when the stress is relieved. HASE polymers are homopolymers of (meth)acrylic acid, or copolymers of (meth)acrylic acid, (meth)acrylate esters, or maleic acid modified with hydrophobic vinyl monomers. Exemplary commercially available HASE polymers include those marketed by Dow Chemical under the trade designations ACUSOL
TM 801S, ACUSOL
TM 805S, ACUSOL
TM 820, ACUSOL
TM 823, ACULYN
TM 22, ACULYN
TM 28, ACRYSOL
TM TT-615, and ACRYSOL
TM TT-935. [0142] Additional exemplary commercially available HASE polymers include those marketed by BASF under the trade designation RHEOVIS
® HS, e.g., RHEOVIS
® HS 1152, RHEOVIS
® HS 1162, RHEOVIS
® HS 1212, and RHEOVIS
® HS 1332. [0143] Hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymers are linear reaction products of diisocyanates with polyethylene oxide end-capped with hydrophobic hydrocarbon groups. Exemplary commercially available HEUR polymers include those marketed by Dow Chemical under the trade designations ACUSOL
TM 880, ACUSOL
TM 882, ACRYSOL
TM RM-2020, ACRYSOL
TM RM-8W, and ACRYSOL
TM SCT-275. Additional exemplary commercially available HEUR polymers include those marketed by BASF under the trade designation RHEOVIS
® PU, e.g., RHEOVIS
® PU 1185, RHEOVIS
® PU 1191, RHEOVIS
® PU 1214NC, RHEOVIS
® PU 1235, RHEOVIS
® PU 1250 NC, RHEOVIS
® PU 1251, RHEOVIS
® PU 1291, and RHEOVIS
® PU 1341. [0144] Hydrophobically-modified polyether (HMPE) polymers are organic, synthetic, non-ionic associative thickener additives that contain a class of hydrophobically modified poly(acetal- or ketalpolyether) derivatives. Exemplary commercially available HMPEs include those marketed by BASF under the trade designation RHEOVIS
® PE, e.g., RHEOVIS
® PE 1320 NC and RHEOVIS
® PE 1331. [0145] Hydrophobically modified ethoxylated aminoplast (HEAT) polymers comprise a polyethylene glycol backbone and aminoplast linkage groups, with hydrophobic end caps. Exemplary commercially available HEAT polymers include those marketed by BYK under the trade name Optiflo
®L100. [0146] In some embodiments, the thickener is ACUSOL
TM823. Acusol
TM823 (The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI) is a HASE anionic associative thickener that contains hydrophobic groups capable of forming intramolecular associations and adsorbing onto the surface of dispersed particles, thus offering thickening and stabilization.
[0147] In some embodiments, the thickener is a non-associative thickener. As used herein, the term “non-associative thickener” refers to a high molecular weight water soluble polymer containing hydrophobic groups that interact with each other to create a three- dimensional network. Suitable non-associative thickeners include alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymers and cellulose ethers. [0148] Alkali soluble/swellable emulsion (ASE) polymers are dispersions of insoluble acrylic polymers in water have a high percentage of acid groups distributed throughout their polymer chains. When these acid groups are neutralized, the salt that is formed is hydrated. Depending on the concentration of acid groups, the molecular weight and degree of crosslinking, the salt either swells in aqueous solutions or becomes completely water-soluble. As the concentration of neutralized polymer in an aqueous formulation increases, the polymer chains swell, thereby causing the viscosity to increase. Exemplary commercially available ASE polymers include, without limitation, ACUSOL
TM 810A, ACUSOL
TM 830, ACUSOL
TM 835, ACUSOL
TM 842, ACUSOL
TM 445N, ACRYSOL
TM ASE-60, ACRYSOL
TM ASE-75ER, ACRYSOL
TM ASE-95NP, RHOPLEX
TM ASE-95NP RHOPLEX
TM ASE-108NP, ACULYN
TM 33, ACULYN
TM 38, JONCRYL
TM 60, and JONCRYL
TM 678 polymers. [0149] Additional exemplary commercially available ASEs include those marketed by BASF under the trade designation RHEOVIS
® AS, e.g., RHEOVIS
® AS 1125 NA, RHEOVIS
® AS 1127, RHEOVIS
® AS 1130, RHEOVIS
® AS 1187, RHEOVIS
® AS 1337, and RHEOVIS
® AS 1920. [0150] In some embodiments, the thickener is Joncryl
®60. Joncryl
®60 (BASF Corporation, Florham Park, New Jersey) is a general purpose, mid-range molecular weight acrylic resin in water and ammonia. [0151] Cellulose ethers are water-soluble polymers derived from cellulose. Exemplary cellulose ethers include, without limitation, methyl cellulose (MC), ethyl cellulose (EC), methyl-hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC), methylhydroxyethyl-hydroxypropyl cellulose (MHEHPC), methylhydroxypropyl cellulose (MHPC), ethylhydroxyethyl cellulose (EHEC), ethylhydroxy-propyl cellulose (EHPC), ethylmethylhydroxyethyl cellulose (EMHEC), ethylmethylhydroxy-propyl cellulose (EMHPC), hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), hydroxymethyl-ethyl cellulose (HMEC), hydroxyethylmethyl cellulose (HEMC), hydroxyethyl-propyl cellulose (HEPC), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC), hydroxypropyl- methyl cellulose (HPMC), hydroxypropyl-hydroxyethyl cellulose (HPHEC), carboxy-methyl cellulose (CMC), carboxymethylhydroxyethyl cellulose (CMHEC), carboxy- methylhydroxypropyl cellulose (CMHPC), hydrophobically modified hydroxyethyl cellulose
(HMHEC), sulfoethyl cellulose (SEC), sulfopropyl cellulose (SPC), carboxy- methylsulfoethyl cellulose (CMSEC), carboxymethylsulfopropyl cellulose (CMSPC), hydroxyethyl-sulfoethyl cellulose (HESEC), hydroxypropylsulfoethyl cellulose (HPSEC), hydroxyethylhydroxypropylsulfoethyl cellulose (HEHPSEC), methylhydroxyethyl-sulfoethyl cellulose (MHESEC), methylhydroxypropyl-sulfoethyl cellulose (MHPSEC), methyl- hydroxyethyl-hydroxypropylsulfoethyl cellulose (MHEHPSEC), allyl cellulose (AC), allyl- methyl cellulose (AMC), allylethyl cellulose (AEC), carboxymethylallyl cellulose (CMAC), N,N-dimethylaminoethyl cellulose (DMAEC), N,N-diethylaminoethyl cellulose (DEACC), N,N-dimethylaminoethylhydroxyethyl cellulose (DMAEHEC), N,N- dimethylaminoethylhydroxy-propyl cellulose (DMAEHPC), benzyl cellulose (BC), methylbenzyl cellulose (MBC), benzyl-hydroxyethyl cellulose (BHEC), and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose ether (Na-CMCE). [0152] Carboxymethyl cellulose (also known as CMC cellulose gum, sodium cellulose glycolate, and sodium CMC) is synthesized via chemical reaction of cellulose with monochloroacetic acid and subsequent neutralization with sodium salt. Carboxymethyl cellulose is stable over a broad pH range of 4 to 10 and is well suited for most non-ionic and anionic species as well as monovalent and divalent salts. Carboxymethyl cellulose polymers are available commercially under the trade names CALEXIS
®, CEKOL
®, CELFLOW
®, CELLUFIX
®, and FINNFIX
®. [0153] In some embodiments, the cellulose ether is not carboxymethyl cellulose. [0154] HMHEC polymers include hydroxyethyl cellulose modified with hydrophobic alkyl chains. HMEC polymers are available commercially as, e.g., BERMOCOLL
® EHM 100, BERMOCOLL
® EHM 100 ED, BERMOCOLL
® EHM 200, BERMOCOLL
® EHM 200 ED, BERMOCOLL
® EHM 300, BERMOCOLL
® EHM 500, and BERMOCOLL
® EHM Extra. [0155] In some embodiments, the cellulose ether is not a hydrophobically modified hydroxyethyl cellulose (HMHEC) polymer. [0156] In some embodiments of the methods and compositions according to the present disclosure, the thickener does not comprise a cellulose ether. For example, some embodiments of the methods and compositions according to the present disclosure exclude the use of carboxymethyl cellulose and/or HMEC polymers as a thickener. [0157] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the thickener may be an anionic
thickener. In accordance with such embodiments, the anionic thickener may be a nature- based thickener (e.g., a cellulose or cellulose-based thickener) or a non-cellulose based, synthetic thickener (e.g., an alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer or a hydrophobically- modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer). Suitable non-cellulose based, synthetic thickeners are described in more detail supra. [0158] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the thickener may be selected from the group consisting of the hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane (HEUR) polymer, the hydrophobically-modified alkali swellable emulsion (HASE) polymer, the alkali soluble emulsion (ASE) polymer, and combinations thereof. Suitable HEUR polymers, HASE polymers, and ASE polymers are described in more detail supra. [0159] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water compositions according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the irrigation additive composition may comprise 30.0 wt%, 31.0 wt%, 32.0 wt%, 33.0 wt%, 34.0 wt%, 35.0 wt%, 36.0 wt%, 37.0 wt%, 38.0 wt%, 39.0 wt%, 40.0 wt%, 41.0 wt%, 42.0 wt%, 43.0 wt%, 44.0 wt%, 45.0 wt%, 46.0 wt%, 47.0 wt%, 48.0 wt%, 49.0 wt%, 50.0 wt%, 51.0 wt%, 52.0 wt%, 53.0 wt%, 54.0 wt%, 55.0 wt%, 56.0 wt%, 57.0 wt%, 58.0 wt%, 59.0 wt%, 60.0 wt%, 61.0 wt%, 62.0 wt%, 63.0 wt%, 64.0 wt%, 65.0 wt%, 66.0 wt%, 67.0 wt%, 68.0 wt%, 69.0 wt%, 70.0 wt%, 71.0 wt%, 72.0 wt%, 73.0 wt%, 74.0 wt%, 75.0 wt%, 76.0 wt%, 77.0 wt%, 78.0 wt%, 79.0 wt%, 80.0 wt%, or any amount there between of the thickener. [0160] As used herein, the term “water soluble” refers to a compound that is readily soluble or substantially soluble (i.e., dissolves, disintegrates, solubilizes, etc.) when brought into contact with an aqueous fluid (e.g., water), for example, at ambient temperatures (e.g., room temperature, environmental temperature, etc.). [0161] Water soluble divalent salts are well known in the art and include, for example, barium acetate (Ba(C
2H
3O
2)
2, barium bromide (BaBr
2), barium chlorate (Ba(ClO
3)
2, barium chlorite (Ba(ClO2)2), barium chloride (BaCl2), barium formate (Ba(HCO2)2, barium hydroxide octohydrate (Ba(OH)
2·8H
2O), barium chloride dihydrate (BaCl
2·2H
2O), barium nitrate (Ba(NO3)2), barium nitrite (Ba(NO2)2), calcium acetate (Ca(CH3COO)2), calcium chloride (CaCl
2), calcium chloride dihydrate (CaCl
2·2H
2O), calcium benzoate (Ca(C7H5O2)2·3H2O), calcium bromide (CaBr2), calcium formate (Ca(HCO2)2), calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)
2), calcium ioidate (Ca(IO
3)
2, calcium iodide (CaI
2), calcium nitrate
tetrahydrate (Ca(NO
3)
2·4H
2O), calcium nitrite tetrahydrate (Ca(NO
2)
2·4H
2O), calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO
4·2H
2O), cobalt (II) chloride (CoCl
2), cobalt (II) chloride monohydrate (CoCl2·H2O), cobalt (II) chloride dihydrate (CoCl2·2H2O), cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate (CoCl
2·6H
2O), cobalt (II) chloride nonahydrate (CoCl
2·9H
2O), cobalt (II) sulfate (CoSO4), cobalt(II) sulfate hexahydrate (CoSO4·6H2O), cobalt (II) sulfate heptahydrate (CoSO
4·7H
2O), cobalt(II) nitrate hexahydrate (Co(NO
3)
2·6H
2O), cobalt (II) bromide (CoBr
2), cobalt (II) nitrate (Co(NO3)2), cobalt (II) nitrite (Co(NO2)2), cobalt (II) chlorate (Co(ClO3)2, copper (II) sulfate (CoSO
4), copper (II) sulfate monohydrate (CuSO
4·H
2O), copper (II) sulfate dihydrate (CuSO4·2H2O), copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate (CuSO4·5H2O), copper (II) bromide (CuBr
2), copper (II) chloride (CuCl
2), copper (II) fluorosilicate (CuSiF
6), copper (II) nitrate Cu(NO3)2, copper (II) selenite (CuSeO4), iron (II) sulfate monohydrate (FeSO4·H2O), iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO4·7H2O), iron (II) chloride (FeCl2), iron (II) chloride monohydrate (FeCl2·H2O), iron (II) chloride dihydrate (FeCl2·2H2O), iron (II) bromide (FeBr2), iron (II) fluoride (FeF2), magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), magnesium sulfate tetrahydrate (MgSO4·4H2O), magnesium sulfate heptahydrate (MgSO4·7H2O), magnesium bromide (MgBr2), magnesium chlorate (Mg(ClO3)2), magnesium chloride (MgCl2), magnesium formate (Mg(HCO
2)
2), magnesium nitrate (Mg(NO
3)
2), manganese (II) sulfate (MnSO4), manganese (II) sulfate monohydrate (MnSO4·H2O), manganese (II) chloride (MnCl
2), manganese (II) bromide (MnBr
2), manganese (II) iodide (MnI
2), strontium (II) chloride (StCl2), strontium (II) iodide (StI2), strontium nitrate (Sr(NO3)2), strontium perchlorate (Sr(ClO
4)
2), zinc (II) acetate (Zn(CH
3CO
2)
2), zinc(II) acetate dihydrate (Zn(CH3CO2)2·2H2O), zinc (II) bromide (ZnBr2), zinc (II) chlorate (Zn(ClO3)2), zinc (II) chloride (ZnCl
2), zinc (II) formate, zinc (II) iodide (ZnI
2), zinc (II) nitrate (Zn(NO
3)
2), zinc (II) sulfate monohydrate (ZnSO4·H2O), zinc (II) sulfate heptahydrate (ZnSO4·7H2O), zinc (II) sulfate hexahydrate (ZnSO
4·6H
2O), zinc (II) sulfate anhydrous (ZnSO
4), and zinc formate (Zn(HCO2)2). [0162] In any embodiment of the methods and compositions according to the present disclosure, the water soluble divalent salt is selected from the group consisting of zinc (II) acetate (Zn(CH3CO2)2), zinc (II) acetate dihydrate (Zn(CH3CO2)2·2H2O), zinc (II) bromide (ZnBr
2), zinc (II) chlorate (Zn(ClO
3)
2), zinc (II) chloride (ZnCl
2), zinc (II) formate, zinc (II) iodide (ZnI2), zinc (II) nitrate (Zn(NO3)2), zinc (II) sulfate monohydrate (ZnSO4·H2O), zinc (II) sulfate heptahydrate (ZnSO
4·7H
2O), zinc (II) sulfate hexahydrate (ZnSO
4·6H
2O), zinc (II) sulfate anhydrous (ZnSO4), and mixtures thereof. In some embodiments, the water soluble divalent salt is a zinc (II) sulfate.
[0163] In any embodiment of the method according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the water soluble divalent salt is zinc sulfate. [0164] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the irrigation additive composition may comprise 0.5 wt%, 0.6 wt%, 0.7 wt%, 0.8 wt%, 0.9 wt%, 1.0 wt%, 1.1 wt%, 1.2 wt%, 1.3 wt%, 1.4 wt%, 1.5 wt%, 1.6 wt%, 1.7 wt%, 1.8 wt%, 1.9 wt%, 2.0 wt%, 2.1 wt%, 2.2 wt%, 2.3 wt%, 2.4 wt%, 2.5 wt%, 2.6 wt%, 2.7 wt%, 2.8 wt%, 2.9 wt%, 3.0 wt%, 3.1 wt%, 3.2 wt%, 3.3 wt%, 3.4 wt%, 3.5 wt%, 3.6 wt%, 3.7 wt%, 3.8 wt%, 3.9 wt%, 4.0 wt%, 4.1 wt%, 4.2 wt%, 4.3 wt%, 4.4 wt%, 4.5 wt%, 4.6 wt%, 4.7 wt%, 4.8 wt%, 4.9 wt%, 5.0 wt%, or any amount there between of the water soluble divalent salt. [0165] In any embodiment of the method according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the foam control agent is a silicone- based foam control agent. [0166] The terms “foam control agent”, “anti-foaming agent”, and “defoamer” may be used interchangeably and refer to a compound that reduces, eliminates, or prevents the forming of foam. The foam control agent may act by altering surface tension characteristics of a solution or emulsion, thus inhibiting or modifying the formation of a foam. Foam control agents may be added to an irrigation water composition to prevent or counter the generation of foam. [0167] The foam control agent may be selected from the group consisting of alkyl poly acrylates, fatty acids, fatty alcohols, monoglycerides, diglycerides, triglycerides, a silicone-based foam control agent, and mixtures thereof. [0168] Alkyl poly acrylates consist of several acrylate monomer species which contain various alkyl substitutions adjacent to the ester. Acrylates belong to a family of vinyl polymers that are esters, salts, and conjugate bases of acrylic acid and its derivatives. These vinyl acrylate monomers are polymerized to form acrylate polymers as the vinyl group is susceptible to polymerization. Acrylates possess very diverse characteristics properties ranging from super-absorbency, transparency, flexibility, toughness, and hardness depending on the lateral substituents of the polymeric chain on the α-vinyl carbon or on the ester. Acrylate monomers include, e.g., ethyl acrylate, ethylene-methyl acrylate, methyl
methacrylate, 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, hydroxyethyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate, trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA). Suitable alkyl poly acrylates include, e.g., poly(methyl acrylate) (PMA), poly(ethyl acrylate), poly(butyl acrylate), poly(2- ethylhexyl acrylate), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA), and poly(d-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (poly-HEMA). [0169] Fatty acids or fatty alcohols are species which have from 10 to 20 carbon in their alkyl chain. Suitable fatty acids are saturated or unsaturated and can be obtained from natural sources (e.g., palm oil, coconut oil, babassu oil, safflower oil, tall oil, castor oil, tallow and fish oils, grease, and mixtures thereof) or can be synthetically prepared. Suitable fatty acids include, e.g., capric acid, lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, arachidic acid, and behenic acid. [0170] Fatty alcohols derived from the above-mentioned fatty acids are suitable for the foam control agents of the present disclosure. Suitable fatty alcohols include, e.g., capryl alcohol, lauryl alcohol, myristyl alcohol, palmitoleyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, arachidyl alcohol, and behenyl alcohol. [0171] As used herein, the term “glyceride” refers to esters where one, two, or three of the -OH groups of the glycerol have been esterified. Monoglycerides, diglycerides, and triglycerides may comprise esters of any of the fatty acids described infra. [0172] As used herein, the term “silicone-based foam control agent” refers to a polymer with a silicon backbone. In any embodiment of the methods and compositions according to the present disclosure, the foam control agent is a silicone-based foam control agent. Suitable silicone-based foam control agents include, but are not limited to, polydimethylsiloxane fluid and polydimethylsiloxane-treated silica. In some embodiments of the methods and compositions according to the present disclosure, the foam control agent is a silicone-based foam control agent. Exemplary commercially available silicone-based foam control agents include Antifoam 10 FG (AF 10 FG), Antifoam 30 Food Grade (AF-30 FG), Antifoam 100 Industrial Grade (AF-100 IND), Antifoam 8810 FG (AF 8810 FG), Antifoam 8820 FG (AF 8820 FG), and Antifoam 8830 FG (AF 8830 FG), which are available from Harcros Chemicals Inc. [0173] In some embodiments, the foam control agent is Antifoam
®8810. Antifoam
®8810 (HARCROS, Kansas City, Kansas) is a 10% active food grade emulsion of polydimethylsiloxane formulated to control foam in both food and industrial processing. [0174] Additional exemplary commercially available foam control agents include, without limitation, Antifoam HL 27 (HL-27), Antifoam HL 36 Food Grade (HL-36),
Antifoam HL 40 Food Grade (HL-40), Antifoam HL 52 Food Grade (HL-52), and Antifoam 645-35, which are available from Harcros Chemicals Inc. Additional exemplary commercially available ASEs include XFO-5S (5% active silicone emulsion), XFO-10S (10% active silicone emulsion), XFO-220 (10% active silicone emulsion), XFO-225 (30% active silicone emulsion), XFO-30S (30% active silicone emulsion), XFO-722 (10% active silicone emulsion), XFO-724 (30% active silicone emulsion), XFO-600 (100% silicone compound), XFO-636 (silicone polyether emulsion), XFO-637 (silicone polyether emulsion), XFO-638 (high active silicone polyether emulsion), XFO-64 (high active modified siloxane emulsion), XFO-100S (100% active silicone compound), and XFO-374 (100% active polyol and hydrophobic silica blend), XFO-376 (100% active polyol and hydrophobic silica blend), and XFO-378 (100% active polyol and hydrophobic silica blend), which are available from Ivanhoe Industries Inc. [0175] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the irrigation additive composition may comprise 0.5 wt%, 0.6 wt%, 0.7 wt%, 0.8 wt%, 0.9 wt%, 1.0 wt%, 1.1 wt%, 1.2 wt%, 1.3 wt%, 1.4 wt%, 1.5 wt%, 1.6 wt%, 1.7 wt%, 1.8 wt%, 1.9 wt%, 2.0 wt%, 2.1 wt%, 2.2 wt%, 2.3 wt%, 2.4 wt%, 2.5 wt%, 2.6 wt%, 2.7 wt%, 2.8 wt%, 2.9 wt%, 3.0 wt%, 3.1 wt%, 3.2 wt%, 3.3 wt%, 3.4 wt%, 3.5 wt%, 3.6 wt%, 3.7 wt%, 3.8 wt%, 3.9 wt%, 4.0 wt%, 4.1 wt%, 4.2 wt%, 4.3 wt%, 4.4 wt%, 4.5 wt%, 4.6 wt%, 4.7 wt%, 4.8 wt%, 4.9 wt%, 5.0 wt%, or any amount there between of the foam control agent. [0176] As used herein, the term “complexing agent” refers to a substance that is capable of complexing metal ions. The term “metal ion complexing agent” refers to an ion, molecule, or functional group of a molecule capable of binding with a metal ion through one or several atoms to form a complex. [0177] Suitable exemplary metal ion complexing agents include, without limitation diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), ethylenedinitrilotetraacetic acid (EDTA), nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA), diethanolamine (DEA), triethanolamine (TEA), N-(1,2- dicarboxyethyl)-D,L-aspartic acid (iminodisuccinic acid (IDS), polyaspartic acid (DS), N,N′- ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (EDDS), N,N-bis(carboxylmethyl)-L-glutamic acid (GLDA), methylglycinediacetic acid (MGDA), and mixtures thereof (Kołodyńska, D., “Application of a New Generation of Complexing Agents in Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Different Wastes,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.20(9):5939–5949 (2013), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety).
[0178] In any embodiment of the method according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the metal ion complexing agent may be selected from the group consisting of diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), ethylenedinitrilotetraacetic acid (EDTA), nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA), diethanolamine (DEA), triethanolamine (TEA), and mixtures thereof. [0179] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the irrigation additive composition may comprise 5.0 wt%, 6.0 wt%, 7.0 wt%, 8.0 wt%, 9.0 wt%, 10.0 wt %, 11.0 wt%, 12.0 wt%, 13.0 wt%, 14.0 wt%, 15.0 wt%, 16.0 wt%, 17.0 wt%, 18.0 wt%, 19.0 wt%, 20.0 wt%, 21.0 wt%, 22.0 wt%, 23.0 wt%, 24.0 wt%, 25.0 wt %, 26.0 wt%, 27.0 wt%, 28.0 wt%, 29.0 wt%, 30.0 wt%, 31.0 wt%, 32.0 wt%, 33.0 wt%, 34.0 wt%, 35.0 wt%, 36.0 wt%, 37.0 wt%, 38.0 wt%, 39.0 wt%, 40.0 wt%, 41.0 wt%, 42.0 wt%, 43.0 wt%, 44.0 wt%, 45.0 wt%, 46.0 wt%, 47.0 wt%, 48.0 wt%, 49.0 wt%, 50.0 wt%, 51.0 wt%, 52.0 wt %, 53.0 wt%, 54.0 wt%, 55.0 wt%, 56.0 wt%, 57.0 wt%, 58.0 wt%, 59.0 wt%, 60.0 wt%, 61.0 wt%, 62.0 wt%, 63.0 wt%, 64.0 wt%, 65.0 wt%, 66.0 wt%, 67.0 wt%, 68.0 wt%, 69.0 wt%, 70.0 wt%, 71.0 wt%, 72.0 wt%, 73.0 wt%, 74.0 wt%, 75.0 wt%, 76.0 wt%, 77.0 wt%, 78.0 wt%, 79.0 wt%, 80.0 wt%, or any amount there between of the metal ion complexing agent. In some embodiments, the irrigation additive composition comprises between 5.0 to 50 wt% of the metal ion complexing agent. [0180] As used herein, the term “film forming agent” refers to an agent which functions to enhance film formation. Suitable exemplary film forming agents include, without limitation, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, and mixtures thereof. [0181] In any embodiment of the method according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the film forming agent is polyvinyl alcohol having a molecular weight of 25,000 to 175,000, or any amount therebetween. Alternatively, the film forming agent is polyvinyl alcohol having a molecular weight of 80,000 to 150,000. For example, the film forming agent may be polyvinyl alcohol having a molecular weight of 100,000. [0182] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the irrigation additive composition
may comprise 0.5 wt%, 0.6 wt%, 0.7 wt%, 0.8 wt%, 0.9 wt%, 1.0 wt%, 1.1 wt%, 1.2 wt%, 1.3 wt%, 1.4 wt%, 1.5 wt%, 1.6 wt%, 1.7 wt%, 1.8 wt%, 1.9 wt%, 2.0 wt%, 2.1 wt%, 2.2 wt%, 2.3 wt%, 2.4 wt%, 2.5 wt%, 2.6 wt%, 2.7 wt%, 2.8 wt%, 2.9 wt%, 3.0 wt%, 3.1 wt%, 3.2 wt%, 3.3 wt%, 3.4 wt%, 3.5 wt%, 3.6 wt%, 3.7 wt%, 3.8 wt%, 3.9 wt%, 4.0 wt%, 4.1 wt%, 4.2 wt%, 4.3 wt%, 4.4 wt%, 4.5 wt%, 4.6 wt%, 4.7 wt%, 4.8 wt%, 4.9 wt%, 5.0 wt%, or any amount there between of the film forming agent. [0183] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the soil additive composition may comprise 30 to 80 wt%, 40 to 80 wt%, 50 to 80 wt%, 60.0 to 80 wt%, or 70 to 80 wt% of the thickener; 1.8 to 2.8 wt%, 2.3 to 2.8 wt%, or 1.8 to 2.3 wt% of the water soluble divalent salt; 1.8 to 2.8 wt%, 2.3 to 2.8 wt%, or 1.8 to 2.3 wt% of the foam control agent; 5.0 to 50 wt%, 5.0 to 40 wt%, 5.0 to 30 wt%, 5.0 to 20.0 wt%, 10.0 to 50.0 wt%, 10.0 to 40.0 wt%, 10.0 to 30.0 wt%, 10.0 to 20.0 wt%, 15.0 to 50.0 wt%, 15.0 to 40.0 wt%, 15.0 to 30.0 wt%, or 15.0 to 20.0 wt% of the complexing agent; and 1.8 to 2.8 wt%, 2.3 to 2.8 wt%, or 1.8 to 2.3 wt% of the film forming agent. [0184] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition may comprise more than 99.2 wt%, more than 99.3 wt%, more than 99.4 wt%, more than 99.5 wt%, more than 99.6 wt%, more than 99.7 wt%, more than 99.8 wt%, more than 99.9 wt%, more than 99.91 wt%, more than 99.92 wt%, more than 99.93 wt%, more than 99.94 wt%, more than 99.95 wt%, more than 99.96 wt%, more than 99.97 wt%, more than 99.98 wt%, more than 99.99 wt%, more than 99.991 wt%, more than 99.992 wt%, more than 99.993 wt%, more than 99.994 wt%, more than 99.995 wt%, more than 99.996 wt%, more than 99.997 wt%, more than 99.998 wt%, more than 99.999 wt%, more than 99.9991 wt%, more than 99.9992 wt%, more than 99.9993 wt%, more than 99.9994 wt%, more than 99.9995 wt%, more than 99.9996 wt%, more than 99.9997 wt%, more than 99.9998 wt%, more than 99.9999 wt% water, or any amount there between of the water. [0185] In accordance with such embodiments, the irrigation water composition may comprise less than 0.8 wt%, less than 0.7 wt%, less than 0.6 wt%, less than 0.5 wt%, less than 0.4 wt%, less than 0.3 wt%, less than 0.2 wt%, less than 0.1 wt%, less than 0.09 wt%, less than 0.08 wt%, less than 0.07 wt%, less than 0.06 wt%, less than 0.05 wt%, less than 0.04 wt%, less than 0.03 wt%, less than 0.02 wt%, less than 0.01 wt%, less than 0.009 wt%, less
than 0.008 wt%, less than 0.007 wt%, less than 0.006 wt%, less than 0.005 wt%, less than 0.004 wt%, less than 0.003 wt%, less than 0.002 wt%, less than 0.001 wt%, less than 0.0009 wt%, less than 0.0008 wt%, less than 0.0007 wt%, less than 0.0006 wt%, less than 0.0005 wt%, less than 0.0004 wt%, less than 0.0003 wt%, less than 0.0002 wt%, less than 0.0001 wt% or any amount there between of the irrigation additive composition. [0186] In any embodiment of the methods according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition according to the present disclosure, or the composition suitable for growing plants according to the present disclosure, the irrigation water composition further comprises a plant treatment chemical selected from the group consisting of a pesticide, a fertilizer, and a growth regulating agent. [0187] As used herein, the term “pesticide” refers to an agent that can be used to control and/or kill a pest or organism. Pesticides are well known in the art and include, for example, herbicides, intended for the control of noxious weeds and plants; insecticides, intended for the control of insects; fungicides, intended for the control of fungi; miticides, intended for the control of mites; nematicides, intended for the control of nematodes; acaricides, intended for the control of arachnids or spiders; and virucides intended for the control of viruses. The plant treatment chemical may be a pesticide selected from the group consisting of an herbicide, an insecticide, a fungicide, a miticide, and a nematicide. [0188] In some embodiments, the composition suitable for growing plants further includes a plant treatment chemical selected from the group consisting of a pesticide, a fertilizer, and a growth regulating agent. [0189] In other embodiments, the plant treatment chemical is a pesticide selected from the group consisting of an herbicide, an insecticide, a fungicide, a miticide, and a nematicide. [0190] In further embodiments, the plant treatment chemical is a herbicide selected from the group consisting of acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitors (ACCase), actolactate synthase inhibitors (ALS), microtubule assembly inhibitors (MT), growth regulators (GR), photosynthesis II, binding site A inhibitors (PSII(A)), photosynthesis II, binding site B inhibitors (PSII(B)), photosynthesis II, binding site C inhibitors (PSII(C)), shoot inhibitors (SHT), enolpyruvyl-shikimate-phosphate synthase inhibitors (EPSP), glutamine synthase inhibitors (GS), phytoene desaturase synthase inhibitors (PDS), diterpene inhibitors (DITERP), protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors (PPO), shoot and root inhibitors (SHT/RT), photosystem electron diverters (ED), hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase synthesis inhibitors (HPPD), and combinations thereof.
[0191] Suitable herbicides include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 2. Table 2. Exemplary Herbicides Site of Action of Class of Active Common Name of Commercial Active Ingredient Ingredient Active Ingredient Product ®
ed from the group consisting of carbamates, organochlorines, nicotinoids, phosphoramidothioates, organophosphates, pyrethroids and combinations thereof. [0193] Suitable insecticides include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 3. Table 3. Exemplary Insecticides Class of Active Ingredient Common Name of Active Ingredient Commercial Product
, p g d from the group consisting of aliphatic nitrogens, benzimidazoles, dicarboximides, dithiocarbamates, imidazoles, strobins, anilides, aromatics, sulfur derivatives, copper derivatives, and combinations thereof.
[0195] Suitable fungicides include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 4. Table 4. Exemplary Fungicides Class of Active Ingredient Common Name of Active Ingredient Commercial Product Aromatic Chlorothalonil Bravo
®
rom the group consisting of carbamates, carbazates, diphenyl oxazolines, glycides, macrocylic compounds, METI-acaracides, napthoquinone derivatives, organochlorines, organophosphates, organotins, oils, pyrethroids, pyridazinone, pyrroles, soaps, sulfur, tetrazines, tetronic acids, and combinations thereof. [0197] Suitable miticides include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 5. Table 5. Exemplary Miticides Class of Active Ingredient Common Name of Active Commercial Product In redient
Organophosphate Disulfoton Di-Syston
® Organotin Fenbutatin oxide Vendex
® ®
ted from the group consisting of carbamates, organophosphates, halogenated hydrocarbons, methyl isothiocyanate liberators, and combinations thereof. [0199] Suitable nematicides include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 6. Table 6. Exemplary Nematicides Class of Active Ingredient Common Name of Commercial Product Active Inredient
[ ] n some emo ments, te pant treatment cemca s a ert zer containing plant nutrients selected from the group consisting of sulfur, phosphorus, magnesium, calcium,
potassium, nitrogen, molybdenum, copper, zinc, manganese, iron, boron, cobalt, chlorine, and combinations thereof. [0201] In other embodiments, the plant treatment chemical is a growth regulating agent selected from the group consisting of auxins, cytokinins, defoliants, ethylene releasers, gibberellins, growth inhibitors, growth retardants, growth stimulators, and combinations thereof. [0202] Suitable growth regulators include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 7. Table 7. Exemplary Growth Regulators Class of Active Ingredient Common Name of Active Commercial Ingredient Product
[0203] The following examples are intended to illustrate practice of the disclosure, and are not intended to limit the scope of the claimed invention. MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR EXAMPLES 1–14 [0204] The irrigation aid compositions used in Examples 1–14 are described in Table 8. Table 8. Irrigation Aid Compositions Irrigation Thickener Water Foam Metal Ion Film Forming ) )
3 4.00% 0.10% 0.10% 2.00% 0.10% Acusol
®823 ZnSo4 Antifoam
® TEA PVA ) ) ) ) ) )
hydrophobically modified alkali soluble acrylic polymer emulsion (HASE) anionic associative thickener that contains hydrophobic groups capable of forming intramolecular associations and adsorbing onto the surface of dispersed particles, thus offering thickening and stabilization. [0206] Joncryl
®60 (BASF Corporation, Florham Park, New Jersey) is a general purpose, mid-range molecular weight acrylic resin in water and ammonia. [0207] Antifoam
®8810 (HARCROS, Kansas City, Kansas) is a 10% active food grade emulsion of polydimethylsiloxane formulated to control foam in both food and industrial processing. EXAMPLE 1 – California Cucumber Drip-Irrigation Field Trials [TRACS 21RDK19] Demonstrate Increased Water-Use Efficiently and Crop Yield Enhancement [0208] Studies were carried out in fields of growing cucumber plants in Visalia, California in August–October. The soil was a Nord Loamy Sand. [0209] In all trials, drip irrigation was carried out in 3.3 foot x 100 foot plots for 6 weeks, with two chemigation applications (+ irrigation water as needed to prevent wilting). Trials were carried out in quadruplicate, with treatments replicated in 2 blocks. The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) Control N/A 0:1
9 resulted in a significant increase in lbs of fruit/acre and # fruit/acre in block 104 (formulation A average = 4.4 lbs (S.D. = 0.5) vs water-alone average = 2.2 lbs (S.D.1.0). Most striking was the difference in root mass (also in block104): Formulation C average = 89.3 g (S.D. 10.3) vs water-alone average = 62.3 gallons (S.D.3.1). Irrigating plots with formulation A, formulation B, and formulation CC depressed yield (lbs) compared to control; irrigating plots with formulation C resulted in statistically the same yield (lbs and fruit#) as control. Of the other treatments, irrigating plots with formulation M showed a significant yield increase effect in both yield-lbs and #fruit per acre: formulation M = average 32, 144 lbs/acre vs control = 26,095 lbs/acre (i.e., 23% increase); formulation M = average 63,111 fruit#/acre vs control = average 48,069 fruit#/acre (i.e., increase of 32%). Irrigating plots with formulation C showed an average increase in fruit#/acre of 15% compared to control (i.e., 55,263 #/acre vs 48,069 #/acre). Interestingly, although formulation M increased yield, it did not increase root mass or root diameter. With rare exceptions, irrigating plots with formulation O, formulation P, formulation Q, and formulation R did not result in any difference in moisture or yield, compared to control. [0211] The water efficiency comparison can be calculated based on 1935 gallons total irrigation water for both formulations comprising the irrigation aid and control treatments: formulation M = 63,111 fruits/acre/1935 gallons = 32.6 fruits/acre/gal vs. control 48,069 fruits/acre/1935 gallons = 24.8 fruits/acre/gal (i.e., a 31% increase in water-use efficiency for
#fruits/acre per gallon). Yield-weight water efficiency for formulation M = 32,144 lbs/acre/1935 gallons = 16.6 lbs/acre/gal vs. control 26,095 lbs/acre/gal – 13.5 lbs/acre/gal (i.e., a 23% increase in water-use efficiency when the irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of Table 9 were used). EXAMPLE 2 – Colorado Center-Pivot Irrigated Corn Trials Demonstrate Increased Water-Use Efficiently and Crop Yield Enhancement [0212] Studies were conducted by the Irrigation Research Foundation in Yuma, Colorado in fields of growing corn plants in March–September in 9 replicates. These trials utilized a single tractor pulled fertilizer application followed by center-pivot irrigated corn field tests in loamy sand soil. In all trials, fields were “strip-tilled” with a fertilizer application (i.e., in the absence of an irrigation aid) on Day 0 and spray irrigated (center- pivot) with a fertigation mix on Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106; herbicides/pesticides were applied as per standard practice; corn was harvested on Day 181. The experimental protocol included two types of irrigation: set watering amounts/timing (i.e., standard irrigation) vs. sensor-driven (conductance probe) irrigation (i.e., data driven irrigation). [0213] In the standard irrigation trials, a set amount of water was applied to the corn field through a center-pivot spray system on a pre-set time schedule. In the data driven irrigation trials, water was applied to the corn field through the same system which is turned on when the %soil-water (capacitance) probe in the soil hit a programmed threshold reading. In the data-driven trials, the irrigation water was delivered only when the %soil-water reached a certain level of predetermined “dryness”. [0214] A total of four plots were evaluated. One plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by standard irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by data driven irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the absence of an irrigation aid by standard irrigation, and one plot was irrigated in the absence of an irrigation aid by data driven irrigation. Yield monitoring was carried out for nine replicates within each of the 4 plots. Irrigation water formulations were applied in two treatments of 18.8 gallons and two treatments of 14.6 gallons spread-out equally over four irrigation events (Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106). [0215] The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) Control N/A 0:1
corn (bus e s/acre) n w en rr gat on water was app ed by standard rrgat on and data driven irrigation protocols. The results in Table 11 demonstrate distinct differences in the average yield obtained between the standard and data driven irrigation protocols. The water- use efficiency (bushels yield/acre/gal) for the standard irrigation protocol carried out in the absence of an irrigation aid was 0.38, as compared to 0.40 when standard irrigation was carried out in the presence of the irrigation aids identified in Table 10. However, the difference in data driven irrigation protocols in the absence of an irrigation aid, as compared to data driven irrigation in the presence of the irrigation aids identified in Table 10 was 0.33 vs 0.39 for more than a 3X increase (5.5% vs 18%) in water use efficiency. This is particularly noteworthy because data driven irrigation is driven primarily by enhanced plant root water uptake. These facts suggest that the irrigation aids of Table 10 enhance plant function by optimizing the soil/water/nutrient/oxygen system while also increasing the yield per unit water applied. Table 11. Water Use Efficiency and Crop Yield Irrigation Block Irrigation Irrigation Water/ Irrigation Water/ % Improve- Ai i h f I i i Yield i p
a e e o s a es a ga g w o ua o o o u a o produced a yield increase compared to irrigating with control. For standard irrigation, irrigating with formulation I resulted in an average 131.8 bushels/acre compared to control average of 123.2 bushels/acre (an increase of 7.0% in yield). For %soil-water sensor-driven watering (data driven irrigation), irrigating with formulation J resulted in an average 132.5 bushels/acre compared to control average of 108.6 bushels/acre (an increase of 22.0%).
EXAMPLE 3 – Nebraska Center-Pivot Irrigated Corn Trials Demonstrate Increased Water-Use Efficiently and Crop Yield Enhancement [0218] Studies were conducted by Winsome Inc. in Holdrege, Nebraska in June – October. [0219] This trial evaluated center-pivot irrigated corn in Sandy Loam type soil. The irrigation water formulation used in this study is shown in Table 12. Table 12. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) Control N/A 0:1
“real world” conditions. The field trial was 150 acres. Due to supply chain problems and shipping difficulties the quantity of formualtion W necessary for this large trial did not arrive in Nebraska until late in the corn’s irrigation schedule. Application of irrigation water formulation W early in the growth cycle and during the first pivot irrigation is preferable. However, the late arrival of the formulation W resulted in the product only being used one time during the last irrigation of the season. Formulation W was applied on the Northern half of the field (upper half on the yield map) while the Southern half of the field had the growers standard program (i.e., control = lower half on the yield map). The majority of the yield potential of the crop was already determined by the last irrigation of the season. Despite the unfavorable timing of the application, the Northern (upper) half of the field had a 16 bushel increase in yield. The only difference in the two halves of the field was the inclusion of irrigation water formulation W in the last irrigation of the season. [0221] The yield map in FIG.1 is very typical of what corn growers use to monitor and evaluate harvest yield. Using a John Deere S770S combine with the “Active Yield” yield monitoring system (also John Deere), the precision agriculture system is a widely used yield mapping system that combines precise grain flow sensors on the combine with a georeferenced, GPS satellite link. The yield levels shown in the gray-scale heat-map of FIG. 1 are in bushels/acre, with their corresponding shades of grey according to increasing yield: light grey is lowest yield (186.43-225.51 bushels/acre), with increasingly dark gray shades indicating higher yields (225.52-254.35 bushels/acre, 254.36-277.81 bushels/acre, 277.82- 299.78 bushels/acre, 299.79-325.64 bushels/acre), and the highest yield in darkest gray at 325.65+ bushels/acre. Looking at the diagram, it is apparent that an increased yield pattern can be seen in the upper-half of the circular image (the pivot-based irrigation pattern) which
is where the treatment was carried out with irrigation water formulations of the present disclosure. EXAMPLE 4 – Colorado Corn Center Pivot Irrigated Corn Trials Demonstrate Increased Plant Root Uptake of Soil-Water at Critical Root Zone Depths [0222] Studies were conducted by the Irrigation Research Foundation in Yuma, Colorado in fields of growing corn plants in March–September in 9 replicates. These trials utilized a single tractor pulled fertilizer application followed by center-pivot irrigated corn field tests in loamy sand soil. In all trials, fields were “strip-tilled” with a fertilizer application (i.e., in the absence of an irrigation aid) on Day 0 and spray irrigated (center- pivot) with a fertigation mix on Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106; herbicides/pesticides were applied as per standard practice; corn was harvested on Day 181. The experimental protocol included two types of irrigation: set watering amounts/timing (i.e., standard irrigation) vs. sensor-driven (conductance probe) irrigation (i.e., data driven irrigation). [0223] In the standard irrigation trials, a set amount of water was applied to the corn field through a center-pivot spray system on a pre-set time schedule. In the data driven irrigation trials, water was applied to the corn field through the same system which is turned on when the %soil-water (capacitance) probe in the soil hit a programmed threshold reading. In the data-driven trials, the irrigation water was delivered only when the %soil-water reached a certain level of predetermined “dryness”. [0224] A total of four plots were evaluated. One plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by standard irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by data driven irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the absence of an irrigation aid by standard irrigation, and one plot was irrigated in the absence of an irrigation aid by data driven irrigation. Yield monitoring was carried out for nine replicates within each of the 4 plots. Irrigation water formulations were applied in two treatments of 18.8 gallons and two treatments of 14.6 gallons spread-out equally over four irrigation events (Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106). [0225] The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 13.
Table 13. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) Control N/A 0:1 tions,
us ng Sente probes. Sente probes ut ze capac tance (i.e., t e d e ectr c property o soil) to indirectly determine the %soil- water. These capacitance probes are placed at nine different depths: 5 cm, 15 cm, 25 cm, 35 cm, 45 cm, 55 cm, 65 cm, 75 cm, 85 cm (approx. equivalent to: 2”, 6”, 10”, 14”, 18”, 22”, 26”, 30”, 33”). The probes automatically record a capacitance measurement at each depth every 15 minutes. The measurements were taken from Day 75 to Day 151 (approximately 10 weeks). More specifically, measurements were taken at each location/treatment (2 controls, 2 experimental conditions), at each depth, 80,640 readings of capacitance (i.e., every 15 minutes, 24/7) were taken over the 10-week period. [0227] The Root Uptake metric is a calculation based on the measured change in soil- water% over time, at a specific probe depth. It is an estimation of the amount of soil-water that roots are taking-up (i.e., removing from the soil-water system) from the soil. The Root Uptake term is calculated from the change in soil-water% over a particular time period at a particular probe depth. It is based on the following assumptions: there are only four ways that soil-water at any particular measured depth can decrease over time: 1) gravity (vertically downward), 2) lateral (i.e., horizontal - can be in any direction; water moves from wetter to dryer to equilibrate the soil-water system, 3) evaporation (vertically upward), and 4) root uptake. The method of Root Uptake measure determines the rate of soil-water decrease and deducts very high-rate removal (caused by gravity, i.e., leaching) and very low-rate removal (caused by lateral and wet-to-dry “equilibration”). Intermediate rates of soil-water decrease are assumed to be Root Uptake. This assumption is verified by observing the root uptake as having a daytime rate of significant negative soil water change (i.e., water removal from the soil-water system) and a nighttime rate of zero Root Uptake. [0228] The patterns of Root Uptake of water at several depths over twelve weeks are shown in FIG.2. In FIG.2, each bar on the y-axis represents the total average Root Uptake of water (in inches of water on the y-axis) at the location and treatment, the bars on the x-axis represent one week, with total days indicated below the axis. The color bars indicate the portion of that weekly Root Uptake total that are contributed from a particular depth. FIG.2 compares Root Uptake patterns of two Controls (timed-irrigation of 11.85”, sensor-based
irrigation of 12.05”) compared to two formulations of irrigation water compositions comprising the irrigation aids of Table 13. There are significant differences in these Root Uptake patterns indicating effects of the irrigation water compositions comprising the irrigation aids of Table 13 on plant root activity related to water assimilation. [0229] Scrutiny of the patterns in FIG.2 reveals a striking difference between Control and irrigation with the irrigation water formulations of Table 13. At 25 cm of depth, over all sample times (80,000+ measurements) the average root water uptake (in inches) averaged 18% of total average root uptake rate compared to an average of 10% for control (Table 14). Table 14. Control, Inches of water Irrigation Water Formulations of Table 11, (% of total root uptake) Inches of water (% of total root uptake) %
Enhanced Chlorophyll Content in Corn Plants Grown in Field Irrigated with Irrigation Additive Compositions [0230] Studies were conducted by the Irrigation Research Foundation in Yuma, Colorado in fields of growing corn plants in March–September in 9 replicates. These trials utilized a single tractor pulled fertilizer application followed by center-pivot irrigated corn field tests in loamy sand soil. In all trials, fields were “strip-tilled” with a fertilizer application (i.e., in the absence of an irrigation aid) on Day 0 and spray irrigated (center- pivot) with a fertigation mix on Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106; herbicides/pesticides were applied as per standard practice; corn was harvested on Day 181. The experimental protocol included two types of irrigation: set watering amounts/timing (i.e., standard irrigation) vs. sensor-driven (conductance probe) irrigation (i.e., data driven irrigation). [0231] In the standard irrigation trials, a set amount of water was applied to the corn field through a center-pivot spray system on a pre-set time schedule. In the data driven irrigation trials, water was applied to the corn field through the same system which is turned on when the %soil-water (capacitance) probe in the soil hit a programmed threshold reading. In the data-driven trials, the irrigation water was delivered only when the %soil-water reached a certain level of predetermined “dryness”. [0232] A total of four plots were evaluated. One plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by standard irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by data driven irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the absence of an irrigation aid by standard irrigation, and one plot was irrigated
in the absence of an irrigation aid by data driven irrigation. Yield monitoring was carried out for nine replicates within each of the 4 plots. Irrigation water formulations were applied in two treatments of 18.8 gallons and two treatments of 14.6 gallons spread-out equally over four irrigation events (Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106). [0233] The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 15. Table 15. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) Control N/A 0:1
leaves from one plant in each of 10 rows (i.e., 10 sample) in each Treatment block, were non- destructively analyzed according to the “Chlorophyll-Content-Index” (CCI) method. CCI is measured using an Apogee Instruments MC-100 chlorophyll concentration meter. The meter consists of two light emitting diodes (one emits visible red wavelengths, the other emits near- infrared) with paired detectors. The meter measures the ratio of radiation transmittance from these two different wavelengths and an algorithm outputs chlorophyll concentration. Meter readings in either μmoles/m² or in CCI units. [0235] Average CCI for irrigation with irrigation water formulation I or irrigation water formulation J treatments = 16.2; average CCI for irrigation with control = 13.0l (FIG. 3). Irrigation with irrigation water formulation I or irrigation water formulation J produces a 25% increase in chlorophyll content in corn leaves. EXAMPLE 6 – South Carolina Irrigated Corn Field Trials Demonstrate Enhanced Chlorophyll Content in Corn Plants Grown in Field Irrigated with Irrigation Additive Compositions [0236] Studies were conducted in a field of growing corn irrigated by pivot irrigation. The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 16. Table 16. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL))
[0237] Just prior to harvest, corn leaves from 1 plant, randomly selected from each of 10 rows (i.e., 10 samples) in each treatment were non-destructively analyzed according to the Chlorophyll-Content-Index (CCI) method. CCI measured using an Apogee Instruments MC- 100 chlorophyll Concentration meter. The meter consists of two light emitting diodes (one emitting red radiation and one emitting near infrared radiation) with paired detectors. The meter measures the ratio of radiation transmittance from two different wavelengths (red and near infrared) and outputs chlorophyll concentration, which is calculated by an internal algorithm from the transmittance ratio measurement. Meter readings in μmoles or CCI . [0238] Leaves of corn plants growing in soil irrigated with irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of Table 16 treatment average = 535 μmol; control average = 445 μmol with the highest level of chlorophyll produced by formulation X at 600 μmol vs the control average of 445 μmol. Irrigation with irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of Table 16 resulted in a chlorophyll content increase in corn plants in this study of 34.8% (FIG.10A) and yield increase of 14 bushels/acre (an 8.4% increase)for the formulation X as compared to control (FIG.10B). EXAMPLE 7 – California Cucumber Drip-Irrigation Field Trials [TRACS 21RDK19] Demonstrate Increase in Root Biomass in Fields Irrigated with Irrigation Additive Compositions [0239] Studies were carried out in fields of growing cucumber plants in Visalia, California in August–October. The soil was a Nord Loamy Sand. [0240] In all trials, drip irrigation was carried out in 3.3 foot x 100 foot plots for 6 weeks, with two chemigation applications (+ irrigation water as needed to prevent wilting). Trials were carried out in quadruplicate, with treatments replicated in 2 blocks. The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 17. Table 17. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL))
P 6 6,400:1 Q 7 6,400:1
treatment blocks was collected, washed, and roots weighed. [0242] Use of irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of Table 17 increased average cucumber plant root mass by 65% (Irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of Table 17, root mass average = 109 grams (S.D.12.0); control root mass average = 66 grams (S.D.12.3). Use of irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of Table 17 resulted in an average increase of 65% in root biomass. EXAMPLE 8 – Colorado Corn Center Pivot Irrigated Corn Trials Demonstrate Reduced Variability of % Soil-Water Over Time [0243] Studies were conducted by the Irrigation Research Foundation in Yuma, Colorado in fields of growing corn plants in March–September in 9 replicates. These trials utilized a single tractor pulled fertilizer application followed by center-pivot irrigated corn field tests in loamy sand soil. In all trials, fields were “strip-tilled” with a fertilizer application (i.e., in the absence of an irrigation aid) on Day 0 and spray irrigated (center- pivot) with a fertigation mix on Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106; herbicides/pesticides were applied as per standard practice; corn was harvested on Day 181. The experimental protocol included two types of irrigation: set watering amounts/timing (i.e., standard irrigation) vs. sensor-driven (conductance probe) irrigation (i.e., data driven irrigation). [0244] In the standard irrigation trials, a set amount of water was applied to the corn field through a center-pivot spray system on a pre-set time schedule. In the data driven irrigation trials, water was applied to the corn field through the same system which is turned on when the %soil-water (capacitance) probe in the soil hit a programmed threshold reading. In the data-driven trials, the irrigation water was delivered only when the %soil-water reached a certain level of predetermined “dryness”. [0245] A total of four plots were evaluated. One plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by standard irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by data driven irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the absence of an irrigation aid by standard irrigation, and one plot was irrigated
in the absence of an irrigation aid by data driven irrigation. Yield monitoring was carried out for nine replicates within each of the 4 plots. Irrigation water formulations were applied in two treatments of 18.8 gallons and two treatments of 14.6 gallons spread-out equally over four irrigation events (Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106). [0246] The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 18. Table 18. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) Control N/A 0:1
tions, using Sentek probes. Sentek probes utilize capacitance (i.e., the dielectric property of soil) to indirectly determine the %soil-water. These capacitance probes are placed at nine different depths: 5 cm, 15 cm, 25 cm, 35 cm, 45 cm, 55 cm, 65 cm, 75 cm, 85 cm (approx. equivalent to: 2”, 6”, 10”, 14”, 18”, 22”, 26”, 30”, 33”). The probes automatically record a capacitance measurement at each depth every 15 minutes. The measurements were taken from Day 75 to Day 151 (approximately 10 weeks). More specifically, measurements were taken at each location/treatment (2 controls, 2 experimental conditions), at each depth, 80,640 readings of capacitance (i.e., every 15 minutes, 24/7) were taken over the 10-week period. [0248] In FIG.4, the y-axis represents the %soil-water averaged over all depths and the x-axis represents each time period measured for control and irrigation water formulations I and J (an average of both formulation I and formulation J). The control %soil-water shows significantly more “spiking” of highs and lows throughout the measurement period (indicating higher and lower % of water in the soil) of ten weeks than soil irrigated with irrigation water formulations I and J. Such reduced variability between highs and lows of %soil-water could also reduce stress on the plant and its root system. Also striking in the data of FIG.4 is the significant downward trend in %soil-water over a several week period when irrigation water formulations I and J were used. This may be related to the gradual growth of roots and commensurate root uptake of soil water. If this hypothesis is correct, it indicates an increase in plant root activity (and perhaps root mass) when irrigation water formulations I and J were used. EXAMPLE 9 – Drip-Irrigation Study (TRACS 21RDK03) Demonstrates Reduced Leaching (i.e., Iron Retention) of Plant Nutrient Ions from Rhizosphere [0249] Drip-irrigation studies were conducted in Visalia, California in January–June
in loamy sand, with no crop. A key objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect that irrigation water formulations comprising irrigation aids have on movement of macro plant nutrient ions (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium). Irrigation events occurred on Day 1, Day 84, Day 93, Day 97, Day 111, and Day 122, as shown in Table 19. Since blocks were irrigated when their moisture meters reached a specific level, each block was irrigated differently based on individual moisture level and need. Table 19. Irrigation Events Day Treatment Day 1 Control, Formulations C, D, E, F, G ted for 5 hours. 150 gallons
of water were applied during the 5-hour irrigation, the beds were 100 feet long and 3.33 feet (40 inches) wide. Subsequent irrigation events were adjusted to 2.5 hours each and produced no puddling at all. [0251] The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 20. Table 20. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) l A 1
Nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium levels at 5-inch and 10-inch soil depths were determined. Rainfall between Day 1 and Day 106 was recorded (11 events). Only one rainfall event was more than 0.4 inches (1.1 inch). Beds were irrigated six times via a drip system. Irrigation was triggered when the Watermark “Irrometer” sensors reached a specific reading (50 bars). The drip system was then manually turned on. No NPK fertilizer was applied through the drip system. The only fertilizer applied was a side dressing of 40 lbs of 15-15-15 (NPK) carefully placed 2 inches below the drip emitter - typical of cucumber production systems in San Joaquin Valley. The fertilizer was applied directly below the area that was supposed to be the cucumber furrow. All six treatments received the same amount
of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. Single soil samples at each treatment and for each depth were taken on Day 141 (Table 21). [0253] Irrigation with all irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids identified in Table 19 resulted in higher potassium soil concentration levels at the 5-inch depth, as compared to irrigation in the absence of the irrigation aid of the present disclosure (control). Irrigation with all irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of the present disclosure identified in Table 20 resulted in lower potassium soil concentration levels at the 10-inch depth than the untreated control indicating that irrigation with the irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of the present disclosure identified in Table 20 retards downward movement of potassium in the soil. Irrigation with all irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of the present disclosure identified in Table 20 resulted in higher phosphorus soil concentration levels at the 5-inch depth the untreated check. Irrigation with all irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of the present disclosure identified in Table 20 resulted in lower phosphorus levels at the 10- inch depth than the untreated check. Irrigation with all irrigation water formulations comprising the irrigation aids of the present disclosure identified in Table 20 resulted in higher nitrogen soil concentrations at both 5-inch and 10-inch depths compared to the untreated control. The optimal formulation appeared to be formulation C. The data indicates that when introduced into the soil through irrigation-water, the irrigation aids of the present disclosure identified in Table 20 reduce the downward movement of plant nutrient ions (i.e., slowed leaching) from upper to lower depths of the soil profile (Table 21). Table 21. Treat- Water 5 inches 10 inches 5 inches 10 inches 5 inches 10 ment to otassium otassium hos horous hos horous nitro en inches en 30 F
EXAMPLE 10 – Drip-Irrigation Study (21RDK03) Demonstrates Increased Water Penetration Rate into Soil Surface [0254] Drip-irrigation studies were conducted in Visalia, California in January–June in loamy sand, with no crop. A key objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect that irrigation water formulations comprising irrigation aids of the present disclosure have on movement of macro plant nutrient ions (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium). Irrigation events occurred on Day 1, Day 84, Day 93, Day 97, Day 111, and Day 122, as shown in Table 22. Since blocks were irrigated when their moisture meters reached a specific level, each block was irrigated differently based on individual moisture level and need. Table 22. Irrigation Events Day Treatment Day 1 Control, Formulations C, D, E, F, G for 5 hours. 150 gallons
of water were applied during the 5-hour irrigation, the beds were 100 feet long and 3.33 feet (40 inches) wide. Subsequent irrigation events were adjusted to 2.5 hours each and produced no puddling at all. [0256] The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 23. Table 23. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) C t l N/A 01
g g g n water formulations of Table 23 on the rate of water infiltration into the soil surface. Infiltration rate was indicated by measuring the diameter of surface water puddles directly under the drip- emitter. [0258] No puddling was observed under any emitters in any of the 6 (check and 5 Formulas) treatments 2.5 hours after beginning the irrigation. At the end of the 5-hour irrigation period, the untreated check (treatment #1) had 10 water puddles inspected that
measured an average 3.75 inches in diameter while irrigation with formulations C, D, E, F, and H, respectively all had puddles (10 each) that measured 0.50 inches or less in diameter. The smaller puddle size indicates a faster rate of infiltration into the soil. The irrigation aid of the present disclosure increased the rate of water infiltration into the soil at all of the different irrigation water formulation ratios. EXAMPLE 11 – Drip-Irrigation Study Demonstrates Enhanced Lateral (i.e., Horizontal) Movement Through Subsurface Soil [0259] Drip irrigation field trials were carried out in South Carolina in April. The aim of this study was to assess whether irrigation water formulations comprising irrigation aids of the present disclosure could enhance the lateral (i.e., horizontal) movement of water through subsurface soil. The irrigation water composition was prepared by blending 10,000 parts water with 1 part of irrigation aid 3 (Formulation W). The control irrigation water composition was prepared in the absence of the irrigation additive composition. [0260] Loamy sand was drip irrigated with the irrigation water composition at a rate of 1 gallon per hour per emitter. Drip emitters were spaced 30 inches apart in rows spaced 36 inches apart. [0261] The lateral movement of water through the loamy sand was measured using stacked Sentek (capacitance) probes laid horizontally, at 5 inches below the soil surface, and perpendicular to drip emitters spaced 30 inches apart in two emitter rows separated by 36 inches. [0262] In FIGS.5A and 5B, %soil-water is indicated by a “heat-map” (see grey-bar) with %soil-water listed on the maps. The x-axis provides the distance along the horizontal Sentek probes between emitter rows. Probes measure %soil-water at 5 cm, 15 cm, 25 cm, 35 cm, with 45 cm the midpoint between the two separate emitters. The y-axis is time (in days) from irrigation event (Day 0, Day 2, Day 4, Day 6, Day 8, Day 10, Day 12, Day 14, Day 16, Day 18, Day 20, and Day 22). [0263] FIG.5A is the color heat map showing the % soil-water when a field comprising loamy sand was treated with irrigation water without the irrigation aid composition addition. FIG.5B is a similar heat map showing the % soil-water when the same field of loamy sand was treated with the irrigation water composition comprising the irrigation aid. Both treatments received the same amount of irrigation water. [0264] The patterns of %soil-water treated with irrigation aid of the present disclosure (FIG.5B) vs no treatment (FIG.5A) are clearly significantly different. The percent soil-
water is significantly higher across the x-axis in FIG.5B than in the control (FIG.5A). These results indicate that the presently claimed irrigation water additives and compositions facilitate enhanced lateral soil water movement than water alone. EXAMPLE 12 – Agrimeasures “Stacked Probe” % Soil-Moisture Corn Trials Demonstrate Consistent Lower %Soil-Water at Shallow Soil (i.e., Root Zone) Depths [0265] Studies were conducted by the Irrigation Research Foundation in Yuma, Colorado in fields of growing corn plants in March–September in 9 replicates. These trials utilized a single tractor pulled fertilizer application followed by center-pivot irrigated corn field tests in loamy sand soil. In all trials, fields were “strip-tilled” with a fertilizer application (i.e., in the absence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure) on Day 0 and spray irrigated (center-pivot) with a fertigation mix on Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106; herbicides/pesticides were applied as per standard practice; corn was harvested on Day 181. The experimental protocol included two types of irrigation: set watering amounts/timing (i.e., standard irrigation) vs. sensor-driven (conductance probe) irrigation (i.e., data driven irrigation). [0266] In the standard irrigation trials, a set amount of water was applied to the corn field through a center-pivot spray system on a pre-set time schedule. In the data driven irrigation trials, water was applied to the corn field through the same system which is turned on when the %soil-water (capacitance) probe in the soil hit a programmed threshold reading. In the data-driven trials, the irrigation water was delivered only when the %soil-water reached a certain level of predetermined “dryness”. [0267] A total of four plots were evaluated. One plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by standard irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the presence of an irrigation aid of the present disclosure by data driven irrigation, one plot was irrigated in the absence of an irrigation aid by standard irrigation, and one plot was irrigated in the absence of an irrigation aid by data driven irrigation. Yield monitoring was carried out for nine replicates within each of the 4 plots. Irrigation water formulations were applied in two treatments of 18.8 gallons and two treatments of 14.6 gallons spread-out equally over four irrigation events (Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106). [0268] The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 24.
Table 24. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) Control N/A 0:1 cm, 55
cm, 65 cm, 75 cm, 85 cm (approx. equ vaents: , 6 , 0 , , 8 , , 6 , 30 , 33”) every 15 minutes for three weeks (FIG.6). [0270] Average %soil-water was lower for soil irrigated with formulation I and formulation J at 5 cm, 15 cm, and 25 cm compared to their respective controls; no discernable difference in %soil-water at 35 cm, 45 cm, and 55 cm; irrigating with formulation I and formulation J resulted in higher %soil-water at 65 cm, 75 cm, and 85 cm. Lower %soil-water content at the 5 cm/15 cm/25 cm would be indicative of higher root water uptake activity. This indication of reduced %soil-water likely a result of enhanced root uptake of water. This hypothesis fits the enhanced root uptake observed in Example 4. EXAMPLE 13 – Summary of Field Trial Data, IRF Yuma, Colorado 2022; Center-pivot Corn Fertigation with Irrigation Aid Treatment™ [0271] Studies of irrigation aid composition 3 (Table 8) at a dilution of 1:20,000 (irrigation water formulation U; Table 9) were conducted by the Irrigation Research Foundation in Yuma, Colorado in fields of growing corn plants in April-October. These trials utilized center-pivot irrigated corn field tests in loamy sand soil. In all treatment and control blocks, fields were “strip-tilled” with a fertilizer application (25-17-1.5 + 0.24 Zn) one month (on 04 April) prior to planting on 07 May. On planting day 01, an initial fertilizer application (45-17-0-10 + 0.1 Zn) was applied by ground spray and an in-furrow application of insecticide (Force 10GHC @ 2.26 lb/A). Fields were planted with corn variety P0339Q. All treatment and control blocks were ground-sprayed on 16 May with Acuron (3 qt/A), Atrizine 90DF (0.3 lb/A), DriftFiant (0.225 pt/A), Full Load (0.45 pt/A), and Mad Dog (0.22 oz/A). Fields were spray-fertigated (with 28-0-0-5 at typical application rates per acre through a center-pivot system on 6/22, 7/4, 7/11, and 8/15. [0272] “Inches of water” in irrigation systems refers to the volume of water needed to cover a defined two-dimensional area with water to one inch of depth. In U.S. agricultural irrigation systems, the standard area considered is one acre. Therefore, an “inch of water” typically means the volume of water that will cover one acre in one inch of water. This amount of water on an acre of land is equal to 27,154 gallons.
[0273] Three water-irrigation regimes were used: 100% of a recommended seasonal total (i.e., 18.86 “inches water”) for applied irrigation water volume per acre; 88% of the recommended irrigation water application amount (16.59 “inches water”), and 82% of the recommended irrigation water amount (15.46 “inches water”). Treatment and Control blocks were replicated as set forth in Table 25 below. Table 25. Treatment and Control Blocks Block Irrigation Aid Treatment Control 100% Irrigation Water 24 replicates 18 replicates
measure n us e s acre ( u ). n a t on to erne y e , ea t ssue sampes o se ect plants in each treatment and control were taken. Irrigation Aid Treatment vs. Control in Different Irrigation Regimes [0275] 100% Irrigation Water. Table 26 shows the average yield (bushels/acre) for formulation U treatment (n = 24) compared to control (n= 18) in the 100% (18.89”) applied water regime. Formulation U treatment and control produce essentially the same average yield: formulation U treatment average yield = 210.5 bushels/acre per acre vs.210.7 bushels/acre for control (Table 26). The range of yield was much larger for formulation U treatment (152.3 bushels/acre) compared to control treatment (91.8 bushels/acre). Table 26. Corn Yield in 100% Recommended Water Irrigation Total (Bushels/Acre) Yield Irrigation Aid Treatment (n = 24) Control (n = 18) Avera e 2105 2108
for formulation U treatment compared to control treatment in the 88% applied water regime (16.59”). The effect of formulation U treatment is apparent. With a sample size of 17, the average formulation U treatment yield is 194 bushels/acre compared to 174.2 bushels/acre for control treatment – a treatment effect increased yield of 11%. Formulation U treatment also shows a higher maximum and minimum yield than control. Under the reduced water condition, Formulation U treatment provides a smaller range and standard deviation than control indicating reduced yield variability with formulation U treatment under reduced water application.
Table 27. Corn Yield in 88% Recommended Water Irrigation Total (Bushels/Acre) Yield Irrigation Aid Treatment (n = 17) Control (n = 17) Average 194.0 174.2 for f
ormulation U treatment compared to control treatment in the 82% applied water regime (15.46”). The effect of formulation U treatment on yield at 82% is even more pronounced than at 88%. The average yield for formulation U treatment at 82% water is 192.9 bushels/acre compared to control treatment with an average yield of 161.8 bushels/acre for an effect of average yield increase of 19%. The average minimum and maximum yield is higher for formulation U treatment, however the range and standard deviation are similar compared to control. Table 28. Corn Yield in 82% Recommended Water Irrigation Total (Bushels/Acre) Yield Irrigation Aid Treatment (n = 18) Control (n = 16) Average 192.9 161.8
yield of formulation U treatment compared to control going from 100% to 88%, 88% to 82%, and 100% to 82%. Average yield declines in both formulation U treatment and control with reduced water application. However, there is a significantly lower average percent decrease in yield for formulation U treatment compared to control as applied water amounts decrease. With the decrease of water from 100% to 88% water, the control percentage change in yield is -17.3% compared to the formulation U treatment percent change in yield of -7.8%. [0279] Similarly, when the amount of applied irrigation water decreases from 88% of recommended water to 82%, the control percentage change in yield is -7%, compared to formulation U treatment percentage change in yield of only -1%. When comparing 100% of recommended applied irrigation water to 82%, the percentage change in yield for the control group is -23%, while the percentage change in the yield for formulation U treatment is only - 8%.
Table 29. Percent Change of Average Yield Percent change from Percent change from Percent change from 18.86 (100%) to 16.59 16.59 (88%) to 18.86 (100%) to 15.46 1 4 2 2
[0280] Irrigation aid treatment significantly reduces the yield decrease caused by reduction in applied irrigation water compared to control. At 100% irrigation water applied, irrigation aid water formulation U treatment produces a similar bushel/acre yield compared to control. This indicates that under sufficient soil water conditions, formulation U treatment does not produce a yield increase. However, at reduced irrigation amounts of 88% and 82% of recommended amounts, formulation U treatment shows a consistent yield increase over control (11% increase at 88% water; 19% increase at 82%). This indicates that formulation U treatment lessens yield reduction caused by reduced soil-water conditions. This could manifest as a maintenance of yield under drought conditions or a general reduction of irrigation water use. EXAMPLE 14 – Colorado Center-Pivot Irrigated Corn Trials Demonstrate Increased Soil-Water/Plant Uptake Efficiency and Crop Yield Enhancement [0281] Studies of irrigation aid composition 3 (Table 8) at a dilution of 1:20,000 (irrigation water formulation U; Table 9) were conducted by the Irrigation Research Foundation in Yuma, Colorado in fields of growing corn plants in March–September. These trials utilized a single tractor pulled fertilizer application followed by center-pivot irrigated corn field tests in loamy sand soil. In all trials, fields were “strip-tilled” with a fertilizer application (i.e., in the absence of an irrigation aid) on Day 0 and spray irrigated (center- pivot) with a fertigation mix on Day 82, Day 92, Day 99, and Day 106; herbicides/pesticides were applied as per standard practice; corn was harvested on Day 181. The experimental protocol included sensor-driven (conductance probe) irrigation (i.e., data driven irrigation) up to set amounts of total water delivered to the field. [0282] In the data driven irrigation trials, water was applied to the corn field through the system which is turned on when the %soil-water (capacitance) probe in the soil hits a programmed threshold reading. In these trials, irrigation water was delivered only when the %soil-water reached a certain level of predetermined “dryness”.
[0283] In this example, two Sentek, multi-unit soil probe units were placed in two separate locations in the trial corn field – one in the field receiving the Irrigation Aid Treatment, the other in the Control field receiving no treatment. The Sentek units each have %soil-water (i.e., soil mass electrical resistivity) and ion-concentration (i.e., soil-water electrical conductivity) probes at 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, 40 cm, and 50 cm soil depth below the surface. Each probe, at each depth is monitored electronically, with a %soil-water and a soil ion-concentration reading taken every 15 minutes. [0284] The data below represents a total of 12,096 data points (i.e., 96 measurements/ day x 126 days) at each depth, and at each location (irrigation aid treatment vs control). %Soil-Water at Various Depths Over Growing Season [0285] FIG.7A shows the %soil-water at 10 cm depth from the surface from May to September, with Control (“GSP”) on top and irrigation aid treatment (“IRM3”) on the bottom of the graphic. The x-axis is date (every day from May 13 to Sept 17); the y-axis is %soil- water (from 25%-55%). %soil-water is measured by electrical resistivity of the soil/water which varies as a function of soil water content. The %soil-water has been calibrated as percent water by total volume of the soil/water mix. FIG.7A displays the complex multitude of dynamic changes in %soil-water over time with control on the top graph and irrigation aid water formulation U treatment below. [0286] The 10 cm depth of FIG.7A is important since this is the depth at which much of the plant root water uptake activity takes place. FIG.7B and FIG.7C are insets of regions identified in FIG.7A showing the “sawtooth” pattern of increases and decreases of %soil- water, which are caused by the diurnal plant root water uptake cycle – decrease of %soil- water during the day (caused by transpiration) and increase at night caused by water filtration. This plant-based “stair-step” pattern can be seen in FIG.7B and FIG.7C, and also in both irrigation aid treatment and control particularly in the Aug 26-Sept 23 timeframe. [0287] The significant slope differences between formulation U treatment and control treatment are obvious (see FIG.7B and FIG.7C) – indicating that formulation U treatment significantly enhances plant root water uptake. Since rapid water removal from the soil- water-plant system is almost solely due to plant root water uptake, the steeper downward slope indicates a significant increase in plant root water uptake of the irrigation aid treatment. [0288] FIG.7A also shows the large “spikes” of increases and decreases in %soil- water. These “spikes” of %soil-water increases – caused by irrigation events – followed by slopes that indicate %soil-water decrease. During the peak corn development period (i.e.,
June) – see top and bottom brackets in FIG.7A, the amplitude of increase/decrease spikes in %soil-water can be seen. And it is obvious that the amplitude of these %soil-water spikes is much greater during this June plant development period with formulation U treatment than control treatment. This indicates a more significant water uptake rate by plants with the formulation U treatment. [0289] Another readily observable feature of FIG.7A is the line showing the overall average %soil-water for all depths and over the several weeks. The formulation U treatment average = 43.92% compared to control treatment average = 37.49%. Clearly, formulation U treatment enhances soil water retention. [0290] FIG.8 includes both 10 cm (most shallow) and 50 cm (deepest) data-lines for control and irrigation aid treatment, whereas FIGS.9A-9E show the data-lines for control and irrigation treatment at depths of 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, 40 cm, and 50 cm, respectively. The %soil-water average over many weeks (measured in 15-minute increments) is higher with formulation U treatment than control treatment at 10 cm (44% vs 37.5%), 20 cm (42.3% vs 38.2%), 30 cm (43% vs 36.4%) indicating the effect of the irrigation aid formulation of the present disclosure on water retention in the soil rootzone. At 40 cm treatment with formulation U and control show similar %soil-water average (40.7% vs 49.3%) and at 50 cm the %soil-water average is greater for control (47%) than formulation U treatment (32.3%), indicating the result of much reduced water retention in upper depths with control. This is all particularly relevant to plant growth since the upper depths (i.e., 30 cm and less) is the region where plant roots are predominant. [0291] In addition to the very large data-line slope differences of control and irrigation formulation U treatment at 10 cm in May, this Graphic reveals another primary phenomenon effected by the irrigation aid treatment. Most dramatically, at 50 cm, the %soil- water of control remains at roughly between 45% and 50% throughout the growing season. However, at that same deep depth, the irrigation aid treatment %soil-water is essentially never greater than 35%. This points to the formulation U treatment retaining water in shallower depths much more than control in which water leaches to deeper soil. This is important since most crops absorb most of their water in shallow soil regions. [0292] Although preferred embodiments have been depicted and described in detail herein, it will be apparent to those skilled in the relevant art that various modifications, additions, substitutions, and the like can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention and these are therefore considered to be within the scope of the invention as defined in the claims which follow.
through irrigation systems on large turf areas and nurseries or i l i %
Up to 15% Yield Increase, 30% LESS Water and Energy. 30% Ethylene oxide, “Mi I i T h l ” l i l k t
sodium sulfosuccinate and water es
, p g d from the group consisting of aliphatic nitrogens, benzimidazoles, dicarboximides, dithiocarbamates, imidazoles, strobins, anilides, aromatics, sulfur derivatives, copper derivatives, and combinations thereof.
[0195] Suitable fungicides include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 4. Table 4. Exemplary Fungicides Class of Active Ingredient Common Name of Active Ingredient Commercial Product Aromatic Chlorothalonil Bravo®
rom the group consisting of carbamates, carbazates, diphenyl oxazolines, glycides, macrocylic compounds, METI-acaracides, napthoquinone derivatives, organochlorines, organophosphates, organotins, oils, pyrethroids, pyridazinone, pyrroles, soaps, sulfur, tetrazines, tetronic acids, and combinations thereof. [0197] Suitable miticides include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 5. Table 5. Exemplary Miticides Class of Active Ingredient Common Name of Active Commercial Product In redient
Organophosphate Disulfoton Di-Syston® Organotin Fenbutatin oxide Vendex® ®
ted from the group consisting of carbamates, organophosphates, halogenated hydrocarbons, methyl isothiocyanate liberators, and combinations thereof. [0199] Suitable nematicides include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 6. Table 6. Exemplary Nematicides Class of Active Ingredient Common Name of Commercial Product Active Inredient
3 4.00% 0.10% 0.10% 2.00% 0.10% Acusol®823 ZnSo4 Antifoam® TEA PVA ) ) ) ) ) )
hydrophobically modified alkali soluble acrylic polymer emulsion (HASE) anionic associative thickener that contains hydrophobic groups capable of forming intramolecular associations and adsorbing onto the surface of dispersed particles, thus offering thickening and stabilization. [0206] Joncryl®60 (BASF Corporation, Florham Park, New Jersey) is a general purpose, mid-range molecular weight acrylic resin in water and ammonia. [0207] Antifoam®8810 (HARCROS, Kansas City, Kansas) is a 10% active food grade emulsion of polydimethylsiloxane formulated to control foam in both food and industrial processing. EXAMPLE 1 – California Cucumber Drip-Irrigation Field Trials [TRACS 21RDK19] Demonstrate Increased Water-Use Efficiently and Crop Yield Enhancement [0208] Studies were carried out in fields of growing cucumber plants in Visalia, California in August–October. The soil was a Nord Loamy Sand. [0209] In all trials, drip irrigation was carried out in 3.3 foot x 100 foot plots for 6 weeks, with two chemigation applications (+ irrigation water as needed to prevent wilting). Trials were carried out in quadruplicate, with treatments replicated in 2 blocks. The irrigation water formulations used in each trial are shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Irrigation Water Formulations Formulation Irrigation Aid Dilution (Water (GAL): Irrigation Aid (GAL)) Control N/A 0:1