year 13, Issue 4 (Winter 2024 2023)
E.E.R. 2023, 13(4): 153-173 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abdollahi L, Alizadeh Shooshtari A, Juhl Munkholm L. The Effect of Conservation Agriculture Practices and Two Sampling Seasons on Some Soil Pore Characteristics. E.E.R. 2023; 13 (4) :153-173
URL: http://magazine.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-790-en.html
URL: http://magazine.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-790-en.html
Department of Agriculture, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran , l.abdollahi@pnu.ac.ir
Abstract: (661 Views)
1- Introduction
Conservation agriculture is considered by many researchers as a sustainable agriculture strategy. In this type of agriculture, continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance (no tillage or reduced tillage), permanent organic soil cover (residues or cover crops) and diversification of crop species grown in sequences and/or associations are important components. This 11-year long-term (longitudinal) study was conducted to investigate and quantify individual and combined effects of conservation agriculture measurements (namely, plant rotation, crop residue retention, and conservation tillage) on soil volumetric water content (VWC) and soil bulk density (BD) of two sandy loam soils in a temperate region, Denmark. The possible effects of different sampling seasons (autumn and spring) on the study results are also investigated. It was hypothesized that there would be a positive effect of residue retention and diverse rotation on especially the no-tillage treatment.
2- Methodology
In a randomized complete block experimental design with four replications, an 11-year experiment was conducted in two research areas of Denmark. Three crop rotations/residue management treatments were compared. Tillage was included as a split plot factor. The rotation R2 is a rotation of winter crops (mainly cereals) with the retention of plant residues, the rotation R3 is a mixture of winter and spring plants (mainly cereals) with the removal of residues, and the rotation R4 is the same mixture of plants similar to R3 with the retention of residues. Each rotation includes traditional plowing treatments to a depth of 20 cm (MP), harrowing to a depth of 8-10 cm (H) and direct drilling (D). In mid-autumn of 2013, and early spring of 2014, soil samples were taken by cylinder from the depths of 4-8 and 12-16 cm (in 2014 only 4-8 cm depth were sampled). The amount of VWC, in matric potentials from 0 to 100 kilopascals, as well as the apparent soil bulk density were measured. Also, the possible effects of different sampling seasons (autumn and spring) on the study results are investigated.
3- Results
Tillage system and residue management, significantly affected soil properties studied. Direct drilling significantly increased bulk density at both depths (1.31 and 1.38 gr.cm-3). The amount of VWC of the soil was also significantly different in tillage and plant residue treatments. At the depth of 4-8 cm, minimum tillage treatments (D and H) retained more moisture compared to MP (38.6-23% vs 35.8-22%). This trend was different in the depth of 12-16 cm and MP treatment showed the highest VWC in all suctions. The treatment of plant residue retention (R4) also caused the lowest amount of BD, especially at the depth of 12-16 cm. This treatment also significantly increased the VWC of the soil in macroporosity at both depths. The interaction effect of tillage and residue management showed a trend of lower BD where D and MP were combined with residue retention (R4) compared to their combination with residue removal (R3). The positive effect of retaining plant residues on increasing the water holding capacity in soil in a range of moistures that are available for plants was shown only in the spring sampling (2014) in both investigated areas. In the autumn sampling (2013), this effect was observed only at Foulum area and in low suctions (macroporosity).
4- Discussion & Conclusions
The above observations seem reasonable considering the depth of soil that is disturbed in different tillage systems of this study. In the H treatment, which creates the lowest bulk density at Foulum area, at a depth of 4-8 cm and has a lower bulk density, plowing (without turning) is done with a disk to a depth of 8-10 cm. It is obvious that the depth of 4-8 cm is located in this depth range and the reduction of bulk density is expected. In treatment D, where minimum soil disturbance occurs at this depth, higher bulk density is expected. In the lower soil depth, i.e. 12-16 cm, MP has resulted in the lowest soil bulk density compared to the two minimum tillage systems, D and H. The cause may be attributed to the plowing and soil inversion at a depth of 20 cm in this treatment. These observations are consistent with the results of several other studies (Ball et al., 1994; Bescansa et al., 2006; Hill et al., 1985; Schjønning & Rasmussen, 2000). In this regard, Tollner et al. (1984) studied the effect of no tillage and plowing with a mouldboard on the soil bulk density and reported that at a depth of 15 to 25 cm, bulk density in the no tillage system was higher than that of the mouldboard plowing, while at a depth of 30 to 40 cm, bulk density of the soil was higher in the mouldboard plowing system than no tillage system.
The positive effect of plant residues on reducing the soil bulk density after 11 years of implementing the treatments corresponds with the results presented by Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2007) and Lal (2000). They reported a significant increase in soil porosity after 10 years of application of 8 and 16 tons/ha per year of wheat and rice residues to topsoil. However, at zero kPa suction (saturation) and 1 kPa suction, the R4 treatment shows an increasing trend in the amount of water retention in the soil at both investigated depths. This means that plant residue management has increased the amount of moisture that can be stored in macropores. The results of this study are consistent with the results obtained previously from the same long-term test, especially at lower suctions (Abdollahi et al., 2014). Maintaining soil moisture in low suctions (macroporosity) in spring sampling (2014) at both sites and in autumn 2013 at Foulum is not very effective in terms of meeting plant needs. However, it is a desirable feature from the point of view of reducing the amount of runoff production and water erosion.
Conservation agriculture is considered by many researchers as a sustainable agriculture strategy. In this type of agriculture, continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance (no tillage or reduced tillage), permanent organic soil cover (residues or cover crops) and diversification of crop species grown in sequences and/or associations are important components. This 11-year long-term (longitudinal) study was conducted to investigate and quantify individual and combined effects of conservation agriculture measurements (namely, plant rotation, crop residue retention, and conservation tillage) on soil volumetric water content (VWC) and soil bulk density (BD) of two sandy loam soils in a temperate region, Denmark. The possible effects of different sampling seasons (autumn and spring) on the study results are also investigated. It was hypothesized that there would be a positive effect of residue retention and diverse rotation on especially the no-tillage treatment.
2- Methodology
In a randomized complete block experimental design with four replications, an 11-year experiment was conducted in two research areas of Denmark. Three crop rotations/residue management treatments were compared. Tillage was included as a split plot factor. The rotation R2 is a rotation of winter crops (mainly cereals) with the retention of plant residues, the rotation R3 is a mixture of winter and spring plants (mainly cereals) with the removal of residues, and the rotation R4 is the same mixture of plants similar to R3 with the retention of residues. Each rotation includes traditional plowing treatments to a depth of 20 cm (MP), harrowing to a depth of 8-10 cm (H) and direct drilling (D). In mid-autumn of 2013, and early spring of 2014, soil samples were taken by cylinder from the depths of 4-8 and 12-16 cm (in 2014 only 4-8 cm depth were sampled). The amount of VWC, in matric potentials from 0 to 100 kilopascals, as well as the apparent soil bulk density were measured. Also, the possible effects of different sampling seasons (autumn and spring) on the study results are investigated.
3- Results
Tillage system and residue management, significantly affected soil properties studied. Direct drilling significantly increased bulk density at both depths (1.31 and 1.38 gr.cm-3). The amount of VWC of the soil was also significantly different in tillage and plant residue treatments. At the depth of 4-8 cm, minimum tillage treatments (D and H) retained more moisture compared to MP (38.6-23% vs 35.8-22%). This trend was different in the depth of 12-16 cm and MP treatment showed the highest VWC in all suctions. The treatment of plant residue retention (R4) also caused the lowest amount of BD, especially at the depth of 12-16 cm. This treatment also significantly increased the VWC of the soil in macroporosity at both depths. The interaction effect of tillage and residue management showed a trend of lower BD where D and MP were combined with residue retention (R4) compared to their combination with residue removal (R3). The positive effect of retaining plant residues on increasing the water holding capacity in soil in a range of moistures that are available for plants was shown only in the spring sampling (2014) in both investigated areas. In the autumn sampling (2013), this effect was observed only at Foulum area and in low suctions (macroporosity).
4- Discussion & Conclusions
The above observations seem reasonable considering the depth of soil that is disturbed in different tillage systems of this study. In the H treatment, which creates the lowest bulk density at Foulum area, at a depth of 4-8 cm and has a lower bulk density, plowing (without turning) is done with a disk to a depth of 8-10 cm. It is obvious that the depth of 4-8 cm is located in this depth range and the reduction of bulk density is expected. In treatment D, where minimum soil disturbance occurs at this depth, higher bulk density is expected. In the lower soil depth, i.e. 12-16 cm, MP has resulted in the lowest soil bulk density compared to the two minimum tillage systems, D and H. The cause may be attributed to the plowing and soil inversion at a depth of 20 cm in this treatment. These observations are consistent with the results of several other studies (Ball et al., 1994; Bescansa et al., 2006; Hill et al., 1985; Schjønning & Rasmussen, 2000). In this regard, Tollner et al. (1984) studied the effect of no tillage and plowing with a mouldboard on the soil bulk density and reported that at a depth of 15 to 25 cm, bulk density in the no tillage system was higher than that of the mouldboard plowing, while at a depth of 30 to 40 cm, bulk density of the soil was higher in the mouldboard plowing system than no tillage system.
The positive effect of plant residues on reducing the soil bulk density after 11 years of implementing the treatments corresponds with the results presented by Blanco-Canqui and Lal (2007) and Lal (2000). They reported a significant increase in soil porosity after 10 years of application of 8 and 16 tons/ha per year of wheat and rice residues to topsoil. However, at zero kPa suction (saturation) and 1 kPa suction, the R4 treatment shows an increasing trend in the amount of water retention in the soil at both investigated depths. This means that plant residue management has increased the amount of moisture that can be stored in macropores. The results of this study are consistent with the results obtained previously from the same long-term test, especially at lower suctions (Abdollahi et al., 2014). Maintaining soil moisture in low suctions (macroporosity) in spring sampling (2014) at both sites and in autumn 2013 at Foulum is not very effective in terms of meeting plant needs. However, it is a desirable feature from the point of view of reducing the amount of runoff production and water erosion.
Keywords: bulk density, conservation tillage, plant residues, sampling season, soil water retention curve
Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2023/04/10 | Published: 2023/12/31
Received: 2023/04/10 | Published: 2023/12/31
References
1. Abdollahi, L.; Getahun, G. T.; & L. J. Munkholm, 2017. Eleven Years' Effect of Conservation Practices for Temperate Sandy Loams: I. Soil Physical Properties and Topsoil Carbon Content, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 81(2), 380-391. https://doi.org /10. 2 136/sssaj2016.06.0161 [DOI:10.2136/sssaj2016.06.0161]
2. Abdollahi, L., & L. J. Munkholm., (2017). Eleven Years' Effect of Conservation Practices for Temperate Sandy Loams: II. Soil Pore Characteristics. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 81(2), 392-403.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.07.0221 [DOI:10.2136sssaj2016.07.0221]
3. Abdollahi, L.; Munkholm, L. J.; & A. Garbout, 2014. Tillage System and Cover Crop Effects on Soil Quality: II. Pore Characteristics, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 78(1), 271-279.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.07.0302 [DOI:DOI 10.2136/sssaj2013.070302]
4. Abdollahi, L.; Schjønning, P.; Elmholt, S.; & L. J. Munkholm, 2014. The effects of organic matter application and intensive tillage and traffic on soil structure formation and stability, Soil and Tillage Research, 136, 28-37. [DOI:10.1016/j.still.2013.09.011]
5. Bais-Moleman, A. L.; Schulp, C. J. E.; & P. H. Verburg, 2019. Assessing the environmental impacts of production- and consumption-side measures in sustainable agriculture intensification in the European :union:, Geoderma, 338, 555-567. https://doi.org /https :// doi. org /10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.042
10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.042 []
6. Ball, B. C.; Lang, R. W.; Robertson, E. A. G.; & M. F. Franklin, 1994. Crop performance and soil conditions on imperfectly drained loams after 20-25 years of conventional tillage or direct drilling, Soil and Tillage Research, 31(2-3), 97-118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(94)90074-4 [DOI:http:// dx.doi. org/ 1 0.1016/0167-1987(94)90074-4]
7. Beeler, L., 2001. IRMP Tillage Survey Summary, 1999-2000 (USDA-NRCS, Des Moines, IA, Issue.
8. Bescansa, P.; Imaz, M. J.; Virto, I.; Enrique, A.; & W. B. Hoogmoed, 2006. Soil water retention as affected by tillage and residue management in semiarid Spain, Soil and Tillage Research, 87(1), 19-27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.028 [DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.028]
9. Blanco-Canqui, H., & R. Lal., (2007). Impacts of Long-Term Wheat Straw Management on Soil Hydraulic Properties under No-Tillage. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 71(4). [DOI:10.2136/sssaj2006.0411]
10. Blevins, R. L.; Doyle Cook, S. H. Philips, & R. E. Philips, 1971. influence of no-tillage on soil moisture, Agronomy Journa, 63, 593-596. [DOI:10.2134/agronj1971.00021962006300040024x]
11. Bouchoms, S.; Wang, Z.; Vanacker, V.; & K. Oost, 2019. Evaluating the effects of soil erosion and productivity decline on soil carbon dynamics using a model-based approach. [DOI:10.5194/soil-5-367-2019]
12. Carter, M. R., 1994. Strategies to overcome impediments to adoption of conservation tillage. Conservation tillage in temperate agroecosystems, 3-19. CRC press. Boca Raton, FL. [DOI:10.4324/9781315150529-1]
13. Carter, M. R., & B. C. Ball., (1993). Soil porosity. In M. R. C. (ed.) (Ed.), Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
14. De Vita, P.; Elvio, D. P.; Fecondo, G.; Fonzo, N.; & M. Pisante, 2007. No-tillage and conventional tillage effects on durum wheat yield, grain quality and soil moisture content in southern Italy, Soil and Tillage Research, 92, 69-78. [DOI:10.1016/j.still.2006.01.012]
15. Dexter, A. R.; Richard, G.; Arrouays, D.; Czyż, E. A.; Jolivet, C.; & O. Duval, 2008. Complexed organic matter controls soil physical properties, Geoderma, 144(3-4), 620-627.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.01.022 [DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.01.022]
16. FAO. (http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/). Conservation Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/
17. Gaudin, A. C.; Tolhurst, T. N.; Ker, A. P.; Janovicek, K.; Tortora.; R. C. Martin, & W. Deen, 2015. Increasing crop diversity mitigates weather variations and improves yield stability, PLoS One, 10 (2), e0113261
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113261 [DOI:10:e0113261. doi:10.1371/]
18. Franzluebbers, A. J.; Hons, F. M.; & D. A. Zuberer, 1996. Seasonal dynamics of active soil carbon and nitrogen pools under intensive cropping in conventional and no tillage, Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde, 159(4), 343-349. doi: https://doi.org /10.1002 /jp ln. 1 996.3581590406 [DOI:10.1002/jpln.1996.3581590406]
19. García‐Ruiz, J.; Lasanta, T.; Martí, C.; & C. González, 1995. Sediment yield under different land uses in the spanish pyrenees, Mountain Research and Development, https://doi.org /10. 2307 /3673930 [DOI:10.2307/3673930]
20. Habtegebrial, K.; Singh, B.; & M. Haile, 2007. Impact of tillage and nitrogen fertilization on yield, nitrogen use efficiency of tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) and soil properties, Soil and Tillage Research, 94, 55-63. [DOI:10.1016/j.still.2006.07.002]
21. Hansen, E. M.; Munkholm, L. J.; Melander, B.; & J. E. Olesen, 2010. Can non-inversion tillage and straw retainment reduce N leaching in cereal-based crop rotations?, Soil and Tillage Research, 109(1), 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.04.001 [DOI:DOI 10.1016/j.still.2010.04.001]
22. Hill, R. L.; Horton, R.; & R. Cruse, 1985. Tillage effects on soil water retention and pore size distribution of two Mollisols, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 49(5), 1264-1270. [DOI:10.2136/sssaj1985.03615995004900050039x]
23. Kooistra, M. J., & N. K. Tovey., (1994). Effects of compaction on soil microstructure. In: Soane, B.D., Van Ouwerkerk, C. (Eds.). Soil Compaction in Crop Production. Elsevier, New York, pp. 91-111. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-444-88286-8.50013-1]
24. Krogh, L., & M. H. Greve., (1999). Evaluation of world reference base for soil resources and FAO soil map of the world using nationwide grid soil data from Denmark. Soil Use and Management. 15(3), 157-166. [DOI:10.1111/j.1475-2743.1999.tb00082.x]
25. Lal, R., 2000. Mulching effects on soil physical quality of an alfisol in western Nigeria, Land Degradation & Development, 11(4), 383-392. https://doi.org/1099-145/10/1002X(200007/08) 11 :4<383::AID-LDR393>3.0.CO;2-6
https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-145X(200007/08)11:4<383::AID-LDR393>3.0.CO;2-6 [DOI:1099-145/10/1002X(200007/08) 11 :43.0.CO;2-6]
26. Lin, B.; Egerer, M.; Liere, H.; Jha, S.; & S. Philpott, 2018. Soil management is key to maintaining soil moisture in urban gardens facing changing climatic conditions, Scientific Reports. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-35731-7]
27. Logsdon, S. D., & D. L. Karlen., (2004). Bulk density as a soil quality indicator during conversion to no-tillage. Soil and Tillage Research. 78(2), 143-149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.02.003 [DOI:DOI 10.1016/ j.still.2004/02/003]
28. Montgomery, D., 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.0611508104]
29. Moreira, W. H.; Tormena, C. A.; Karlen, D. L.; Silva, Á. P. d.; Keller, T.; & E. Betioli Jr, 2016. Seasonal changes in soil physical properties under long-term no-tillage, Soil and Tillage Research, 160, 53-64. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.02.007 [DOI:10.1016/j.still.2016.02.007]
30. Munkholm, L. J.; Hansen, E. M.; & J. E. Olesen, 2008. The effect of tillage intensity on soil structure and winter wheat root/shoot growth, Soil Use and Management, 24(4), 392-400.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00179.x [DOI:DOI 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00179.x]
31. Munkholm, L. J.; Heck, R. J.; & B. Deen, 2013. Long-term rotation and tillage effects on soil structure and crop yield, Soil and Tillage Research, 127, 85-91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2012.02.007 [DOI:DOI 10.1016/j.still.2012.02.007]
32. SAS Institute Inc., C., NC, USA, (2009). User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Inst., Cary, NC. In.
33. Schjønning, P.; de Jonge, L. W.; Munkholm, L. J.; Moldrup, P.; Christensen, B. T.; & J. E. Olesen, 2012. Clay dispersibility and soil friability-testing the soil clay-to-carbon saturation concept, Vadose Zone Journal, (1) 11. [DOI:10.2136/vzj2011.0067]
34. Schjønning, P., & K. J. Rasmussen., (2000). Soil strength and soil pore characteristics for direct drilled and ploughed soils. Soil and Tillage Research. 57(1-2), 69-82. https://doi.org /10. 1016/s0167-1987(00)00149-5 [DOI:10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00149-5]
35. Shapiro, S. S., & M. B. Wilk., (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 52(3-4), 591-611. [DOI:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591]
36. Soane, B. D.; Ball, B. C.; Arvidsson, J.; Basch, G.; Moreno, F.; & J. Roger-Estrade, 2012. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment, Soil and Tillage Research, 118(0), 66-87. https://doi .org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.10.015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.10.015 [DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.10.015]
37. Thierfelder, C.; Mombeyarara, T.; Mango, N.; & L. Rusinamhodzi, 2013. Integration of conservation agriculture in smallholder farming systems of southern Africa: identification of key entry points, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 11(4), 317-330. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2013.764222 [DOI:10.1080/14735903.2013.764222]
38. Tiessen, H.; Bettany, J. R.; & J. W. B. Stewart, 1981. An improved method for the determination of carbon in soils and soil extracts by dry combustion, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 12, 211- 218. [DOI:10.1080/00103628109367142]
39. Tollner, E. W.; Hargrove, W. L.; & G. W. Langdale, 1984. Influence of conventional and no-till practices on soil physical properties in the southern Piedmont, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 39(1), 73-76. http://www.jswconline.org/content/39/1/73.abstract
40. Tominaga, T.; Cássaro, F.; Bacchi, O. O. S.; Reichardt, K.; Oliveira, J.; & L. Timm, 2002. Variability of soil water content and bulk density in a sugarcane field, Soil Research, 40(4), 604-614. [DOI:10.1071/SR01020]
41. Torres, L. G.; Benites, J. R.; & A. M. Vilela, 2001. Conservation agriculture: a worldwide challenger. XUL. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yCenMQAACAAJ
42. Turner, B., & Kodali, S. (2020). Soil system dynamics for learning about complex, feedback-driven agricultural resource problems: model development, evaluation, and sensitivity analysis of biophysical feedbacks. Ecological Modelling, 428, 109050.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109050 [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109050.]
43. Verhulst, N.; Govaerts, B.; Verachtert, E.; Castellanos-Navarrete, A.; Mezzalama, M.; Wall, P.; & K. D. Sayre, 2010. Conservation agriculture, improving soil quality for sustainable production systems? In R. Lal & B. A. E. Stewart (Eds.), Advances in Soil Science: Food Security and Soil Quality. (pp. 137-208.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. [DOI:10.1201/EBK1439800577-7]
44. Wall, P. C., 2007. Tailoring conservation agriculture to the needs of small farmers in developing countries, Journal of Crop Improvement, 19(1-2), 137-155. https://doi.org /10.1300/J411v19n01_07 [DOI:10.1300/J411v19n01_07]
45. Zhang, J.; Zhou, L.; Ma, R.; Jia, Y.; Yang, F.; Zhou, H.; & X. Cao, 2019. Influence of soil moisture content and soil and water conservation measures on time to runoff initiation under different rainfall intensities, CATENA,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104172 [DOI:10.1016/J.CATENA.2019.104172.]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
