effect of tillage practices on soil properties and crop productivity in

Research ArticleEffect of Tillage Practices on Soil Properties andCrop Productivity in Wheat-Mungbean-Rice Cropping Systemunder Subtropical Climatic Conditions

Md Khairul Alam1 Md Monirul Islam2 Nazmus Salahin1 and Mirza Hasanuzzaman3

1 Soil Science Division Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Gazipur 1701 Bangladesh2 Tuber Crops Research Centre Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Gazipur 1701 Bangladesh3 Department of Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University Dhaka 1207 Bangladesh

Correspondence should be addressed to Mirza Hasanuzzaman mhzsauagyahoocom

Received 25 March 2014 Revised 10 July 2014 Accepted 19 July 2014 Published 14 August 2014

Academic Editor Antonio Roldan Garrigos

Copyright copy 2014 Md Khairul Alam et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

This study was conducted to know cropping cycles required to improve OM status in soil and to investigate the effects of medium-term tillage practices on soil properties and crop yields inGreyTerrace soil of Bangladesh underwheat-mungbean-T aman croppingsystem Four different tillage practices namely zero tillage (ZT) minimum tillage (MT) conventional tillage (CT) and deep tillage(DT) were studied in a randomized complete block (RCB) design with four replications Tillage practices showed positive effectson soil properties and crop yields After four cropping cycles the highest OM accumulation the maximum root mass density (0ndash15 cm soil depth) and the improved physical and chemical properties were recorded in the conservational tillage practices Bulk andparticle densities were decreased due to tillage practices having the highest reduction of these properties and the highest increaseof porosity and field capacity in zero tillageThe highest total N P K and S in their available forms were recorded in zero tillage Alltillage practices showed similar yield after four years of cropping cycles Therefore we conclude that zero tillage with 20 residueretention was found to be suitable for soil health and achieving optimum yield under the cropping system in Grey Terrace soil(Aeric Albaquept)

1 Introduction

Holistic management of arable soil is the key to dealing withthe most complex dynamic and interrelated soil proper-ties thereby maintaining sustainable agricultural productionsystems the lone foundation of human civilization Anymanagement practice imposed on soil for altering the het-erogenous body may result in generous or harmful outcomes[1 2] Unsuitable management practices cause degradation insoil health (depletion of organic matter and other nutrients)as well as decline in crop productivity [3] Reducing distur-bance of soil by reduced tillage influences several physically[4] chemically [5] and biologically [6 7] interconnectedproperties of the natural body

Soil tillage is among the important factors affectingsoil properties and crop yield Among the crop production

factors tillage contributes up to 20 [8] and affects thesustainable use of soil resources through its influence onsoil properties [9] The judicious use of tillage practicesovercomes edaphic constraints whereas inopportune tillagemay cause a variety of undesirable outcomes for examplesoil structure destruction accelerated erosion loss of organicmatter and fertility and disruption in cycles of water organiccarbon and plant nutrient [10] Reducing tillage positivelyinfluences several aspects of the soil whereas excessive andunnecessary tillage operations give rise to opposite phenom-ena that are harmful to soil Therefore currently there is asignificant interest and emphasis on the shift from extremetillage to conservation and no-tillage methods for the pur-pose of controlling erosion process [11] Conventional tillagepractices cause change in soil structure by modifying soilbulk density and soil moisture content In addition repeated

Hindawi Publishing Corporatione Scientific World JournalVolume 2014 Article ID 437283 15 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552014437283

2 The Scientific World Journal

disturbance by conventional tillage gives birth to a finer andloose-setting soil structure while conservation and no-tillagemethods leave the soil intact [12] This difference results in achange of characteristics of the pores network The numbersize and distribution of pores again control the ability of soilto store and diffuse air water and agricultural chemicals andthus in turn regulate erosion runoff and crop performance[13] Losses of soil organic C (SOC) and deterioration inother properties exaggerated where conventional tillage wasemployed [14] With time conservation tillage on the otherhand improves soil quality indicators [15] including SOCstorage [16]

During the first 4 years of tillage Rhoton [17] determineda 10 loss of initial soil organic matter content with ploughtillage Mann [18] also estimated the soil organic matterdepletion between 16 and 77 caused by the tillage In mostinstances increased levels of tillage or increased tillage peri-ods resulted in reductions of soil carbonWhen conventionaltillage is converted to conservation tillage both CO

2emis-

sions from soil andNuptake by the crop are reduced Al-Kaisi[19] reported that reducing tillage significantly decreases SOCloss from soils with high organic matter content Continuouscultivation for cereal cropping in the major cereal growingareas of Bangladesh leads to lowering the nutritional statusof soil in most of the areas Hence the depletion of SOC andN concerned has taken place a problem which needs to bemanaged through N fixation by the plant In this situationleguminous crop such as mungbean can fix N in the range of30ndash40 kgNhaminus1 [20]

Cropping system has an immense effect on physical andchemical soil properties and thereby on crop productivity[21] Soil fertility often changes in response to land use andcropping systems and landmanagement practices [22] Inten-sive cropping promotes high levels of nutrient extractionfrom soils without natural replenishment Limited practicesof legume green manure and jute based cropping patternshave led to depletion of soil organic matter content in soilsof Bangladesh [23] Use of green manure especially legumesin a cropping pattern could help restore crop productivityThe major cereal cropping system of South Asia is rice andwheat grown on the same field but in different seasons duringone year Currently about 12 million hectares of land inPakistan Nepal India and Bangladesh use this croppingpattern accounting for nearly one-fourth of the regionrsquoscereal production After rice wheat has become an impor-tant component of cropping pattern in Bangladesh whichis cultivated mostly after aman rice (lowland rice grownin the wet season from June to November in Bangladeshand east India) Crop production could be increased byadopting appropriate tillage operation and selecting suitablecrops in the cropping pattern including leguminous cropswhich demands intensive field research [23 24] Whetherconservation tillage practice performs better than the long-practiced traditional tillage practices in terms of improve-ment of edaphic and yield influencing characters of thespecific and unearth soil-water-plant ecosystem of the regionis still unknown As the conservation tillage practices havebeen reported to manipulate soil positively they could alsobe a solution of poorly managed soil condition in the region

Gazipur district

Figure 1 Geographical position of ⊚ Gazipur district (larr)

of rice-wheat cropping system Effect of medium-term tillagepractices on soil properties in Grey Terrace soil under wheat-mungbean-T aman (the tall traditional rice some of whichis deep water rice) cropping system has not been reportedThe present study therefore has been initiated with thefollowing objectivesThe specific objective of the study was toobserve howmany cropping cycleswould be required to buildup organic matter (OM) in soil and the general objectiveswere (1) to evaluate the effects of tillage practices on soilhydrophysical properties (2) to study the effect of tillagepractices on the yield performances of wheat-mungbean-Taman cropping system and (3) to study the medium-termeffect of tillage practices on organic matter status of soil

2 Materials and Methods

21 Study Area The field experiment was conducted at theBangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) GazipurBangladesh for the four consecutive years from 2008 to 2012The physical characteristics and chemical status of the initialsoil are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectivelyThe experimen-tal site is located at the centre of the agroecological zone ofMadhupur tract (AEZ-28) at about 24∘ 231015840 north latitude and90∘ 081015840 east longitude having a mean elevation of 84m abovemean sea level The soil belongs to the Chhiata series of theGrey Terrace soils (Aeric Albaquept) under the order Incepti-sols in the USDA Soil Taxonomy [24 25]Themorphologicaland taxonomical characteristics of the experimental site areshown in Table 1 The textural class was clay loam havingsoil pH 57 and the land type is medium high Geographicalposition of Gazipur district is presented in Figure 1

The climate of the experimental area was subtropical wetand humid Heavy rainfall occurs in the monsoon and isscarce in other times The climatic data of the study areafor the period from 2008 to 2012 indicates that the meanannual rainfall is above 1600mm of which 722 is receivedduring the main growing season (Kharif one of the threeseasons in Bengali crop calendar starting from mid-March

The Scientific World Journal 3

Table 1 Morphological and taxonomical characteristics of theexperimental site

Morphological characteristicsLocality BARI Gazipur BangladeshGeographicposition

24∘-01015840N latitude 90∘-251015840E longitude 840mheight above the sea level

AEZ Madhupur tract (AEZ 28)General soiltype

Near neutral soil pH Grey Terrace soils(Aeric Albaquept)

Taxonomic soil classificationOrder InceptisolSuborder AqueptSubgroup Aeric AlbaqueptSoil series ChhiataPhysiographicunit Madhupur tract

Drainage ModerateFlood level Above flood level

Vegetation Clean cultivation and maintaining croppingpattern

Topography Medium high land 840m height above thesea level

Table 2 Physical characteristics of the initial soil of the experimen-tal plot

Particle size distribution ValueSand () 3530Silt () 3729Clay () 2741Textural class Clay loamBulk density (g cmminus3) 160Particle density (g cmminus3) 258Total porosity () 3798Moisture content at field capacity () 2400

and stretching to mid-October) that is from the middle ofMarch 2009 to the middle of October 2009 July and Augustalone contributed more than 50 to the annual rainfall(Figure 2) From late October to mid-March the minimumandmaximum temperatureswere in the lowest rangewhereasfrom mid-March onward up to mid-October temperaturewas in the maximum range However the highest maximumtemperature was recorded in May (Figure 3(a))

The periods from October to May are virtually dry Therelative humidity () varied between day and night of whichat day time relative humidity () was about 90 () and atnight it fluctuated to a wide range from 43 to 85 in Februaryand March respectively (Figure 3(b))

22 Cropping Season There are threemajor cropping seasonsin Bangladesh namely Rabi Kharif-I and Kharif-II Rabiseason stretches from the middle of October to the middle ofMarch Kharif-I season stretches from the middle of Marchto the end of June and Kharif-II season stretches from early

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Rain

fall

mon

th (m

m)

MonthsMean monthly rainfall (mm) 2008ndash2012

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

Long-term average rainfall (mm) from 2000ndash2012

Figure 2 Rainfall (mm) distribution of the experimental site

July to the middle of October In this experiment wheat wasgrown in Rabi season whereas mungbean and T aman werein the Kharif-I and Kharif-II respectively

23 The Test Crop The first crop of the cropping system waswheat (Triticum aestivum L) cv Sourav which was collectedfrom the Wheat Research Centre (WRC) of BARI GazipurIt is a semidwarf early maturing variety having large whitegrain and is suitable for cultivation in both irrigated andrain-fed conditions The seeds of mungbean (Vigna radiataL Wilczek) cv BARI Mung 5 were collected from the PulseResearch Centre of BARI Gazipur while seeds of T amanrice (Oryza sativa L) cv BRRI dhan39 were collected fromthe Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) GazipurBangladesh

24 Experimental Design The experiment was laid out ina randomized complete block design with four replicationsThe experimental design was performed as follows zerotillage (ZT a single slot is opened for seed sowing ortransplanting) minimum tillage (MT ploughed by powertiller maintaining depth by depth control lever up to 6ndash8 cm) conventional tillage (CT similar toMT up to 14ndash16 cmdepth) and deep tillage (DT tillage by chisel plough up to24ndash26 cm depth) The unit plot size was 5m times 4m

25 Fertilizer Application and Other Intercultural OperationsThe fertilizer doses for wheat (Sourav) mungbean and Taman rice were N

120P35

K75

S20

Zn2 N20

P10K13

S5 and

N90

P18

K48

S75

kg haminus1 along with cow dung (CD) 5 t haminus1respectively based on higher yield goal [25] The fertilizerrequirements were calculated on soil test basis In the caseof first crop (wheat) one third urea whole amount of triplesuperphosphate (TSP) and cow dung were applied duringfinal land preparation The rest of the urea MoP gypsumand ZnSO

4were applied in two equal splits at 3rd and 5th

weeks after seed sowing For second crop (mungbean) wholeamount of fertilizers was applied during final land prepara-tion For the third crop (T aman rice) one third of urea


Table 3 Chemical status of the initial soil of the experimental plot

Depth pH OM Total119873

P S B Cu Fe Mn Zn K Ca Mg

(cm) mdash () () (mg kgminus1)0ndash25 57 130 0085 13 12 015 734 590 1763 212 70 1202 240

Critical level mdash 14 14 020 10 100 500 200 78 400 96

10

20

30

40

MonthsMinimum temperatureMaximum temperature

Tem

pera

ture

mon

th (∘

C)

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

(a)

20

40

60

80

100

120

Months

Relat

ive h

umid

itym

onth

()

DayNight

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

(b)

Figure 3 Temperature (a) and relative humidity (b) of the experimental site

and whole TSP were applied during final land preparationand the rest of the urea MoP gypsum and ZnSO

4were

applied in two equal splits at 3rd and 5th weeks after seedlingtransplantation Irrigation and other intercultural operationswere done as and when necessary The soil moisture wasmonitored intensively with tensiometer and sampling of soilwith gravimetric method [26]

26 Seed SowingTransplanting Wheat (cv shatabdi) seedswere sown on the last week of November for all the years ofexperimentation while the first subsequent crop mungbean(cv BARI mung 5) was broadcasted by hands on the secondweek of April and the second subsequent crop T aman (cvBRRI dhan 39) was transplanted on the first week of JulyAfter picking pods twice the total biomass of mungbean wasincorporated into soilThe spacingmaintained for BRRIdhan39 and wheat was 25 times 15 cm and 15 times 5 cm respectively Theexperimental plots were kept fixed during the entire growthperiods

27 Sampling Procedures In all the cropping years thewheat was harvested in the first week of April whereas themungbean harvesting was started in the first week of Juneand continued up to the third week of June Likewise Taman rice was harvested in the first week of November atfull maturity Data of wheat mungbean and T aman wererecorded from one-square-meter area from each plot andthen converted into yield per hectare All the crops were cutat the ground level Threshing cleaning and drying of grain

were done separately plotwiseTheweights of grain and strawwere recorded plotwise About twenty percent (20) residuewas retained in experimental field in case of wheat and ricecrops Soil sampleswere collected at 0ndash25 cmdepth fromeachplot before sowingplanting and at the end of each croppingcycle in every year

28 Soil Analyses Soil samples were then analyzed for pHOM N P K and Zn following standard procedures [5] SoilpH was measured using a glass electrode pH meter (WTWpH 522) at a soil-water ratio of 1 25 as described by Ghosh[27] soil organic C was measured by Walkley and Blackrsquoswet oxidation method as described by Jackson et al [28]and total N was measured by micro-Kjeldahl method [5]available P was determined following the Olsen method [28]exchangeable K was determined using NH

4OAC extraction

method [26] S was determined by turbidimetric methodwith the help of a spectrophotometer using a wave length of420 nm [5] Ca was determined by complexometric methodof titration using Na

2-TA as a complexing agent [5] Mg

was determined by using NH4OAC extraction method [26]

and available Zn Cu Fe and Mn were determined byusing diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) extractionmethod [29] Particle size distribution was done by hydrom-eter method [26] and the textural class was determinedusing the USDA textural triangle Bulk density and particledensity of the soil samples were determined by core samplermethod and Pycnometer method respectively [30] The soilporosity was computed from the relationship between bulk


132

136

140

144

148

152

156

160

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f bul

k de

nsity

(g cm

minus3)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)

250

252

254

256

258

260

262

264

Chan

ges o

f par

ticle

den

sity

(g cm

minus3)

ZT MT CT DTTillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(b)

Figure 4 Change in bulk density (a) and particle density (b) as influenced by different tillage practices (most recent year first) Notes ZTzero tillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillage and DT deep tillage

density and particle density using (1) Soil field capacity andpermanent wilting point were measured using pressure plateapparatus while available water content was calculated using(2) [26] Consider

Porosity () = (1 minus BDPD) times 100 (1)

where BD is bulk density (g cmminus3) PD is particle density(g cmminus3) and

119889 =FC minus PWP100

times BD times Soil depth (2)

where 119889 is available water content (cm) at 60 cm depth FC isfield capacity () and PWP is permanent wilting point ()

The double ring infiltrometer method was used to deter-mine the water infiltration and was computed as cumulativeinfiltration and rate of infiltration in mmhminus1

29 Roots Analyses The root mass density was measured atmaximum vegetative stage in three different soil depths (0ndash15 15ndash30 and 30ndash45 cm) with auger-like root sampler 15 cm(6 inch) in diameter and 225 cm (9 inch) in length using (3)[31] Consider

Root mass density = Mass of rootTotal volume of soil

mg cmminus3 (3)

210 Statistical Analysis The analysis of variance for variouscrop yields and soil physical and chemical properties wasperformed following ANOVA technique and themean valueswere adjudged by Duncanrsquos multiple range test (DMRT)method [32] Computation and preparation of graphs weredone using Microsoft Excel 2003 Program

3 Results

31 Changes of Soil Physical Properties

311 Bulk Density Particle Density Porosity Field Capacityand Permanent Wilting Point Bulk density (Bd) particledensity (Pd) porosity field capacity and permanent wiltingpoint were influenced by the different tillage practices Soilbulk density varied considerably (119875 le 005) among tillagepractices After four years bulk density was decreased dueto tillage practices The highest Bd reduction (641) wasfound in ZT followed by MT (395) while DT showed thelowest reduction (Figure 4(a)) The soil particle density wasdecreased after four years of study The highest decrease wasnoted in ZT and theminimumwas in DT (Figure 4(b)) Afterfour years of cropping cycles porosity was increased fromthe initial value (62 29 and 069 increase in ZT MTand CT resp) (Figure 5(a)) The field capacity (FC) was alsoincreased due to different tillage practices The highest FCincrease (1465) was found in ZT followed by MT (852)CT showed the lowest increase of field capacity from thefirst year value (Figure 5(b)) Permanent wilting point (PWP)was also influenced by the different tillage practices Afterfour years the permanent wilting point was decreased due totillage practices (Figure 6(c)) The highest reduction (1191)was found in ZT followed by CT (832) and the lowestreduction (113) in DT

312 Soil Water Content After four years of experimenta-tion the result showed no significant variation in availablewater content (AWC) due to different tillage treatmentswhereas AWCs were significant after completion of thefirst and second cropping cycles In the end of the studymaximum available water content (AWC) was found in thedeep tillage (1650 cm) and the minimum AWC (1430 cm) inZT (Figure 6(a))


37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f soi

l por

osity

()

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Chan

ges o

f fiel

d ca

paci

ty (

)

(b)

Figure 5 Change in soil porosity (a) and field capacity (b) as influenced by different tillage practices (year most recent first) Notes ZT zerotillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillage and DT deep tillage Means plusmn SE are shown in error bar (119875 le 005)

0

4

8

12

16

20

ZT MT CT DT

Avai

labl

e wat

er co

nten

t (cm

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)

ZT MT CT DTTreatments

2009

2010

2011

2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cum

ulat

ive i

nfiltr

atio

n ra

te (c

m hr

minus1)

(b)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Perm

anen

t wilt

ing

poin

t (

)

(c)

Figure 6 Effect of tillage practice on available water content of soils (a) cumulative infiltration (b) and permanent wilting point (c) (mostrecent year first) Notes ZT zero tillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillage and DT deep tillage Means plusmn SE are shown in errorbar (119875 le 005)


I = 3837t0458

R2= 0994

CI = 1644mm hrminus1

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

(ZT)

(a)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3585t048

R2= 0994


(MT)

(b)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3916t0480

R2= 0996


(CT)

(c)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 5203t0440

R2= 0995

I = 2074mm hrminus1

(DT)

(d)

Figure 7 Cumulative infiltration (mm) over cumulative time (hour) Notes ZT zero tillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillageand DT deep tillage

313 Infiltration Infiltration ofwater into soil was influencedby different tillage practicesThe infiltration rate was found tobe increased after every cropping cycle After four years thehighest increase (1844) was found in ZT followed by MT(735) whereas CT and DT showed decreasing trend aftertwo years (Figure 6(b))Themaximum reduction (331) wasobserved in DT and the minimum was in CT The highestintercept was found in DT (119870 = 5203) followed by CT(119870 = 392) which explains that deep tillage has higher initialinfiltration (Figure 7)

314 Organic Matter Status of Postharvest Soil The organicmatter content in the initial soil was 13 but changed dueto different tillage practices after wheat-mungbean-T amancropping cycles Organic matter ranged from 13 to 15 in2009 and from 12 to 17 in 2010 (Figure 8(a)) of whichthe highest OM content of the range (17) was found inZT and the lowest (12) in DT in both years In 2011 and2012 the maximum organic matter content (19 and 20in 2011 and 2012 resp) was recorded in ZT which wasfollowed by MT (18 in 2011 and 2012) DT showed the


00

05

10

15

20

25

ZT MT CT DT

Org

anic

mat

ter c

onte

nt (

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

003

006

009

012

Tota

l nitr

ogen

()

(b)

Figure 8 Change in soil organic matter (a) and total nitrogen () (b) due to different tillage practices (most recent year first) Notes ZTzero tillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillage and DT deep tillage Means plusmn SE are shown in error bar (119875 le 005)

minimum organic matter (11) (Figure 8(a)) In 2012 theSOM content in ZT was 3448 3103 and 2586 higherthan the SOM in 2009 2010 and 2011 respectively Afterfour years of experimentation the SOM content in ZT was5476 3200 and 1379 greater than the DT CT andMT respectively (Figure 8(a)) It was found that SOMcontentgradually increased inZTwith increasing time but the reverseis true in the case of DT After four years SOM increased by50 in ZT compared to initial status whereas MT and CTshowed comparatively less increment (Figure 8(a))

32 The Nutrient Status in Postharvest Soil after Every Crop-ping Cycle The nutrient concentrations were significantlyvariable (119875 le 005) among different tillage practices (Table 8and Figure 8) The total N () content ranged from 0063 to0076 in 2009 and from 0057 to 0082 in 2010 In 2010the maximum total N content (0082) was found in ZTwhile MT showed the highest total N (0076) in 2009 Theminimum total N content (0063 and 0057 for 2009 and2010 resp) was noted in DT (Figure 8(b)) In 2011 and 2012ZT showed the highest total N () content (0094 and 0099for 2011 and 2012 resp) followed byMT and the lowest (0056and 0057 for 2011 and 2012 resp) was in DT After fouryears the total N content was 7368 320 and 1379 higherin ZT than the DT CT and MT respectively (Figure 8(b)) Itwas observed that the total N () content gradually increasedin ZT and MT with progressing time (Figure 8(b))

Phosphorus content was also significantly influenced(119875 le 005) by the different tillage practices (Table 8) In2011 and 2012 the highest phosphorus content (1854 and2032mg kgminus1 for 2011 and 2012 resp) was found in ZTwhichwas significantly higher than the other tillage practicesThe lowest phosphorus content (1376 and 1432mg kgminus1) wasrecorded in DT The P content was not significantly varied(119875 ge 005) among different tillage practices in 2009 and2010 However it ranged from 1265 to 1399mg kgminus1 and

from 1321 to 1496 mg kgminus1 in 2009 and 2010 respectivelyThe maximum P content (1399 and 1486 ppm for 2009 and2010 resp) was detected in ZT and the minimum (1205 and1321 ppm for 2009 and 2010 resp) was in DT After fouryears the available P was 4190 3674 and 966 higher inZT than the DT CT and MT respectively (Table 8)

Sulphur content was significantly varied (119875 le 005)among different tillage practices in all the years In 2009 and2010 the highest sulphur (1400 and 1612 for 2009 and 2010resp) content was found in ZT followed by MT The lowestS content (1252 and 1352 ppm for 2009 and 2010 resp) wasnoted in DT (Table 8) In 2011 and 2012 ZT also showed themaximum S content (1723 and 1889 ppm for 2011 and 2012resp) which was significantly higher than the other tillagepractices followed by MT (1521 and 1589 ppm for 2011 and2012 resp) The lowest S content (1408 and 1405 ppm for2011 and 2012 resp) was also in DT (Table 8) After four yearsof experimentation available S content was 3445 3073 and1888 higher in ZT than the DT CT and MT respectivelyPotassium content also followed the same trend as N P andS Potassium content was significantly influenced (119875 le 005)due to different tillage practices only in 2012 It ranged from780 to 9361 ppm in 2011 and from 741 to 1053 ppm in 2012ZT showed the highest concentration of K in all the yearsand the minimum was in DT (Table 8) After four years ofcropping cycles available K in ZT was 4211 350 and 1739higher than the DT CT and MT respectively (Table 8)

33 Effect of Tillage on Root Mass Density of Wheat The rootmass density of wheat was measured at three soil depths andvariations among (119875 le 005) tillage practices at differentdepths (Table 4) were found The highest root mass densitywas found in 0ndash15 cm depth followed by 15ndash30 cm depthThe lowest root mass density was noted in 30ndash45 cm depth(Table 4) In surface soil ZT showed themaximum rootmassdensity (999mg cmminus3) followed by MT (992mg cmminus3) The


Table 4 Effect of tillage practice on root mass density of wheat and rice

TreatmentsRoot mass density (mg cmminus3)

Wheat Rice0ndash15 cm 15ndash30 cm 30ndash45 cm Total 0ndash15 cm 15ndash30 cm 30ndash45 cm Total

ZT 999 198c 087b 1284 540a 098b 049b 687MT 992 226b 093b 1311 490b 126b 063b 679CT 872 287ab 121b 1280 475b 187a 081a 743DT 721 296a 154a 1171 464b 196a 094a 754SE (plusmn) 089 019 007 mdash 009 018 006 mdashFigures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5 level of DMRTZT zero tillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillage and DT deep tillage

Table 5 The yield of wheat as influenced by different tillage practices

Treatment Grain yield (t haminus1) Straw yield (t haminus1)2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012

ZT 276b 300b 353 369 445c 399 422 438MT 389a 388a 371 378 510bc 460 48 460CT 422a 400a 388 395 550ab 580 491 500DT 450a 446a 413 411 600a 592 531 534SE (plusmn) 019 020 039 025 025 060 041 051Figures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5 level of DMRTZT zero tillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillage and DT deep tillage

minimumdensity was recorded in DT (Table 4) In 30ndash45 cmdepth the highest root mass density (154mg cmminus3) wasfound inDT and the lowest (087mg cmminus3) was in ZT As rootmass density was highest in the surface soil tillage effects onthe surface would be more important than the deeper layer

34 Effect of Tillage on Root Mass Density of Rice The rootmass density of rice was also significantly (119875 le 005) influ-enced by the tillage practices (Table 4) In the surface soilthe root mass density was significantly varied among tillagetreatmentsThemaximum rootmass density of 540mg cmminus3was recorded in zero tillage The deep tillage showed thehighest root mass density (094mg cmminus3) in the deeper layerand the lowest (049mg cmminus3) was in ZT Among the depthssurface soil showed themaximum rootmass density followedby subsurface and the minimum density was noted in thedeeper layer Though the DT showed the highest root massdensity in deeper layer this layer contains very small amountof roots whereas the maximum root mass density was foundin ZT at surface soil where maximum amount of roots wasrecorded compared to deep layer (Table 4)

35 Effect of Tillage on the Yield of Wheat The wheat yieldwas significantly influenced (119875 le 005) by the different tillagepractices from 2009 to 2010 The highest grain yield (450and 446 t haminus1 for 2009 and 2010 resp) was found in deeptillage followed by CT (422 and 400 t haminus1 for 2009 and 2010resp) The lowest grain yield (276 and 300 t haminus1 for 2009and 2010 resp) was obtained in ZT (Table 5)The deep tillage

also showed the highest straw yield (600 and 592 t haminus1 for2009 and 2010 resp) followed by CT (550 and 580 t haminus1 for2009 and 2010 resp) and MT (510 and 460 t haminus1 for 2009and 2010 resp)Theminimum strawwas also obtained in ZTIn 2011 and 2012 the wheat grain yield was not significantlyvaried (119875 ge 005) among tillage practices The wheat grainyield ranged from 353 to 413 t haminus1 in 2011 and from 369to 411 t haminus1 in 2012 After four years the yield gap wasvery minimal (negligible) among different tillage practicesthough the deep tillage showed the highest yield In the caseof straw yields a similar trend was found

36 Mungbean Yield Among the four years mungbeanyield was not significantly influenced (119875 ge 005) by thedifferent tillage practices except for the yield in 2010 (Table 6)After four years (in 2012) the mungbean grain yield rangedfrom 792 to 820 kg haminus1 The highest yield (820 kg haminus1) wasfound in DT followed by ZT (812 kg haminus1) The lowest yield(792 kg haminus1) was noted in MT (Table 6) It was found thatthe yield difference was negligible among the tillage practicesafter four-year cropping cycles

37 Effect of Tillage Practices on the Yield of T aman In 2009and 2010 the T aman yields were significantly influenced(119875 le 005) by the different tillage practices The grainyield ranged from 287 to 456 t haminus1 in 2009 and from 364to 463 t haminus1 in 2010 The highest grain yield (450 and463 t haminus1 for 2009 and 2010 resp) was found in DT Theminimum grain yield (287 and 364 for 2009 and 2010


Table 6 Effect of tillage practice on the yield of mungbean

Treatment Grain yield(kg haminus1) 2009

Biomass yield(t haminus1) 2009

Grain yield(kg haminus1)2010


Grain yield(kg haminus1) 2011




ZT 632 626 644c 639b 780 726 812 756MT 784 712 841b 683b 785 728 792 760CT 837 782 1000a 768a 800 762 800 787DT 882 815 1100a 829a 820 800 820 810SE (plusmn) 1256 014 1011 012 1211 013 1157 013Figures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5 level of DMRTZT zero tillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillage and DT deep tillage

Table 7 The yield of T aman as influenced by different tillage practices


ZT 287c 364b 418 449 307b 375 395 454MT 377b 384ab 424 430 413a 396 396 432CT 440a 429ab 429 437 468a 439 440 440DT 456a 463a 443 451 484a 469 460 460SE (plusmn) 013 028 017 012 027 031 052 011Figures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5 level of DMRTZT zero tillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillage and DT deep tillage

resp) was recorded in ZT After two years rice yield wasnot significantly variable (119875 ge 005) among tillage practices(Table 7)

4 Discussion

The experiment was conducted during four years indicatingthat zero and minimum tillage practices had significantinfluence on soil physical and chemical properties and yieldsof crops in wheat-mungbean-T aman cropping systemcompared to conventional and deep tillage practices

The bulk density (Bd) was decreased by 959 959 1034and 1111 in DT CT MT and ZT respectively compared toinitial value Different tillage practices showed more or lesssimilar influence on bulk density After the completion of fouryears it was found that there was no significant (119875 ge 005)difference among the different tillage practices This mightbe due to the deposition of OM in ZT practice Soil bulkdensity is the significant indicator of change of soil physicalhealth and water retention capacity under different tillagedepths [33] A similar result was reported by Sarwar et al[34] In New South Wales (NSW) Australia the soil Bd wasreduced by 67 in no tillage (at 50 cm depth) compared toconventional tillage after 14 years [35] He et al [35] reportedthat the mean bulk density (in 0ndash30 cm soil layer depth)under NT and CT treatments was 140 and 141Mgmminus3respectively and the difference was negligible in the longterms which is in agreement with the findings of our studyIn Chinese Loess Plateau crop stubble retention under notillage and controlled traffic has been reported to increasesoil organic matter and biotic activity thereby reducing bulkdensity in the surface soil layer [35 36] Soil organic C

has a direct impact on the bulk density or inversely on theporosity of soil since the particle density of organic matter isconsiderably lower than that of mineral soil and soil organicmatter is often associated with increased aggregation andpermanent pore development as a result of soil biologicalactivity [37]The changes in soil bulk density in 0ndash030m soillayer are consistent with the porosity results After 8 years ofdifferentmanagement themean soil bulk density in 2007was08ndash15 lower in NT than the CT at Daxing and ChangpingThe reduced bulk density in NT could be attributed to higherorganic matter content [38] and better aggregation [39]

Soil particle density (Pd) was varied insignificantly (119875 ge005) among tillage practices after four years of experi-mentation For an average between 0 and 25 cm depthparticle density was found to be decreasing in ZT with time(256 g cmminus3) as compared to deep tillage (255 g cmminus3) whereparticle density was stuck at a fairly constant level Thedecrease of Pd in ZT (119875 ge 005)might be due to accumulationof organic matter (OM) with time A similar result was alsoobserved by Ruhlmann et al [39] where Pd decreased in topsoil and it was related to variation in SOC

The effects of tillage practices on porosity were smallerbut consistently positive over years After 4 years porositywas increased in soil from the initial year due to tillagepractices The increase of soil porosity in ZT might be dueto the addition of OM and crop residues which was caused byzero and minimum disturbance of soil Similar results werealso reported by He et al [35] Many studies have indicatedthat tillage systems significantly influenced the soil pore sizedistribution [40] However our results were in agreementwith the findings of He et al [35] who reported that totalporosity in the 0ndash15 cm layer was similar under different


Table 8 Effect of tillage practice on available P available K and available S after wheat-mungbean-T aman cropping sequence

Treatment P (ppm) K (ppm) S (ppm)2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012

ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b

SE (plusmn) 095 109 061 027 808 569 539 206 036 043 044 065Figures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5 level of DMRTZT zero tillage MT minimum tillage CT conventional tillage and DT deep tillage

treatments and also with that of the work of Zhang and Songet al [40] where no significant difference in porosity wasfound at the surface layer Zhu et al [41] also reported that notillagewithmulchwas found to increase 55 of total porosityin 0ndash30 cm soil layer compared to traditional tillage after 4years

Soil moisture retentive characteristics (SWR) were variedby tillage practices Soil water retention (SWR) at fieldcapacity (minus33 kPa) was initially higher in the deep tillage (119875 ge005) but it was gradually increasing in the soil treated withzero tillage with the advancement of experiment Plant-avail-able water content gave almost similar result (119875 ge 005) to soilwater retention at FC Higher difference was also observed in0ndash25 cm depth after completion of the first cropping cyclewhere AWC was 3668 2818 and 1478 lower in ZT thanthe DT CT and MT respectively After four cropping cyclesthe results reflected insignificantAWCamong different tillagepractices The increasing trend of water retention in the soilunder ZT practices also implied water uptake increase bythe crop resulting in a gradual improvement of crops yieldin zero tillage compared to the other tillage practices inthe dry season where yields almost remained constant ordecreasing in some cases with time Soils under no-tillagepractices have greater water storage capacity than the tilledsoils [42] Fernandez-Ugalde [43] conducted an experimentfor a medium-term basis and found that the SWR at fieldcapacity was significantly higher in NT than the CT andreported that these differences were particularly noticeable inthe soil surface depth where water retention was 23 lowerin CT than in NT In the present study SWR was found to beincreasing in ZT practice with experiment progressing aheadeven though the soil water content at field capacity (FC)during the initial year was found to be significantly higher(119875 le 005) with DT In the long run SWR and AWC wouldbe found to be significantly higher in zero tillage than theother tillage practices as the experiment showed the evidenceof OM build-up and other physical characteristics favourablefor this Besides infiltration is an important soil featurecontrolling leaching runoff and crop water availability [44]

After the first cropping cycle the variation in soil waterinfiltration was higher among different tillage practices thanthe infiltration variation four years apart which was found tobe narrowing down (119875 ge 005) ZT practices promote infiltra-tion and water retention year after year Schwen et al [44]reported that soils under no-tillage treatment have greater

infiltration rates than the tilled soils With management forless than a few years water infiltration in NT may be similaror lower than the CT due to initial compaction and lack ofsufficient biological activity for development of stable soilstructure [45] Conservation tillage practice with judiciouscrop residue management improves aggregate stability [46]and leads to reduced soil detachment and improved infil-tration rates [47] Surface OM is also essential for waterinfiltration and conservation of nutrients [48] Wang et al[49] also reported that conservation tillage may delay run-offby 12ndash16min in heavy rainfall and improve final infiltrationrate by 609 in comparison with conventional mouldboardploughing in Shanxi province

The root mass density (RMD) of wheat and rice varied(119875 le 005) among the tillage practices and differentsoil depths The total RMD of three sampling depths forboth crops was found close in range (1311ndash1171 and 754ndash687mg cmminus3 for wheat and rice resp) In 0ndash15 cm depththe roots growth was higher in ZT and MT than the CT andDT but the reverse is true in case of subsurface (15ndash30 cm)and deep soils (30ndash45 cm) Therefore ZT plays an import-ant role in root mass density distribution in the soil Theincorporation of biomass from mungbean favoured max-imum roots growth [50 51] The root mass density wasdrastically reduced downward which was associated with theincreased soil bulk density in deeper zone Root proliferationor extensibility was obstructed by the dense or compact layerof the soil profile [52] Similar results were found by Parkerand Lear [53] and Alam and Matin [54] in different crops

It was observed that the OM content () was foundto be decreased in deep tillage after each cropping cycleof wheat-mungbean-T aman whereas organic matter wasgradually deposited in the soils where no orminimumdistur-bance occurred throughout the four cropping cycles Asimilar result was also found by Chan and Heenan et al [55]in different tillage practices Zero tillage along with addi-tion of organic matter and crop residues in the cropping sys-tems has been reported to increase soil organic matter signi-ficantly in the 0ndash25 cm soil layer compared to DT after 4years Zhu et al [41] also observed a similar result where ZThad 43 SOM in the 0ndash30 cm soil layer compared to tradi-tional tillage after 4 years In addition improvements of cropyields have been documented where conservation tillage waspracticed [56 57] Ma and Tong [57] reported that the winterwheat yield in conservation tillage was 10ndash20 higher than


the conventional tillage in Shandong northern China Meanwheat yield improvement in no tillage was estimated to be43 between 2003 and 2004 in the more arid Hexi Corri-dor area of northwest China [58] In central Texas UnitedStates after twenty years in wheat cropping system soil org-anic matter and total N were increased by 28 and 33 in notillage at 0ndash15 cm soil depth [59] Conservation tillage wasalso showed to improve soil water content and crop yieldsin many environments [7 60] whereas Hammel et al [60]reported negative effects of no tillage on crop yields in aridareas of the United States However frequent and exces-sive tillage and residue removal in CT and deep tillage bychiseling resulted in significant loss of SOM [61] Tillage-induced changes in soil organic N are often directly relatedto changes in SOC ZT and MT showed significantly (119875 le005) higher concentrations of available N in the surface soilSoil available P was also significantly (119875 le 005) improvedby the MT and ZT particularly in 0ndash25 cm soil depth Theaccumulation of P at the topsoil in ZT and MT can beexplained by the limited downward movement of particle-bound P in no-till and minimum-till soils and the upwardmovement of nutrients from deeper layers through uptake byroots [62] Roldan et al [62] observed that SOM increasedby up to 15 through no tillage and minimum tillage at0ndash50mm soil depth in Mexico The significant increases ofavailable N and P in conservation tillage practices were alsoconsistent with the findings of other researchers [63 64] Ina study Reyes et al [64] reported that soil organic carbon(SOC) was higher in NT (277 in 0ndash15 cm depth) comparedto CT (222 in 0ndash15 cm depth) Reicosky et al [65] alsoreported that SOMcontent was increased under conservationtillage practices following the accumulation rate from 0 to115 t C haminus1 yrminus1 with the highest values in temperate climaticcondition Similar data were also observed by Lal et al [66]where organic carbon accumulation rate ranged from 01to 05 t haminus1 yrminus1 This aspect is very important due to themultiple roles played by the organic matter in the soil Itregulates biological physical and chemical processes thatcollectively determine soil health

After four years of experimentation it was found thatthere was no difference in grain yield of rice as influencedby DT and ZT This might be due to the build-up of organicmatter in the zero tillage practice which occurred withthe progress of cropping cycles In the present study theimproved soil chemical and physical properties were pro-bably responsible for the increased crop yields in conserva-tion tillage practices (ZT andMT) in Grey Terrace soil underwheat-mungbean-T aman cropping system As reported byLiao et al [67] and Xue et al [68] conservation tillage prac-tices have been shown to increase crop yield considerably

5 Conclusions

After four years different tillage practices showed that theyinfluenced soil physical and chemical properties along withthe improvement of SOM status under wheat-mungbean-Taman cropping systems ZT with mungbean biomass andresidue incorporation conserved moisture in the soil profileand improved other soil properties reduced the bulk density

and increased OM porosity AWC and RMD After fouryears the chemical properties were also improved due toZT and MT practices The highest total N () P K andS in their available forms were found in zero tillage Alltillage practices showed statistically similar yield after fouryears of cropping cycles Therefore zero tillage (minimumsoil disturbance) with 20 residue retention was found to besuitable to improve soil conditions and to achieve optimumyield underwheat-mungbean-T aman cropping system in theGrey Terrace soil (Aeric Albaquept)

Abbreviations

AEZ Agroecological zoneANOVA Analysis of varianceB BoronBARC Bangladesh Agricultural Research CouncilBD Bulk densityBRRI Bangladesh Rice Research InstituteCD Cow dungCu CopperDAS Days after sowingDAT Days after transplantingDMRT Duncanrsquos multiple range testDTPA Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acidE longitude East longitudeFC Field capacityFe IronFRG Fertilizer recommendation guidePD Particle densityRDF Recommended dose of fertilizerSOC Soil organic carbonS SulphurT aman Transplanted amant TonTSP Triple superphosphateRMD Root mass densitySWR Soil water retention

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the Ministry of AgriculturePeoplesrsquo Republic of Bangladesh for financial support duringthe study period They are grateful to BARC (BangladeshAgricultural Research Council) for the advice Special thanksare also due to Dr MD Azizul Haque and Dr Rowshan AraBegum and their team for physical and chemical laboratoryfacilities

References

[1] R Derpsch T Friedrich A Kassam and L Hongwen ldquoCurrentstatus of adoption of no-till farming in the world and someof its main benefitsrdquo International Journal of Agricultural andBiological Engineering vol 3 no 1 pp 1ndash25 2010


[2] F Wolfarth S Schrader E Oldenburg J Weinert and J Bru-notte ldquoEarthworms promote the reduction of Fusarium bio-mass and deoxynivalenol content in wheat straw under fieldconditionsrdquo Soil Biology and Biochemistry vol 43 no 9 pp1858ndash1865 2011

[3] M E Ramos A B Robles A Sanchez-Navarro and J L Gon-zalez-Rebollar ldquoSoil responses to different management prac-tices in rainfed orchards in semiarid environmentsrdquo Soil andTillage Research vol 112 no 1 pp 85ndash91 2011

[4] R Lopez-Garrido M Deurer E Madejon J M Murillo andF Moreno ldquoTillage influence on biophysical soil properties theexample of a long-term tillage experiment underMediterraneanrainfed conditions in South Spainrdquo Soil andTillage Research vol118 pp 52ndash60 2012

[5] A L Page RHMiller andD R KunyMethods of Soil AnalysisPart 2 American Society of Agronomy Soil Science Society ofAmerica Madison Wis USA 2nd edition 1989

[6] C J Bronick and R Lal ldquoSoil structure and management areviewrdquo Geoderma vol 124 no 1-2 pp 3ndash22 2005

[7] A Munoz A Lopez-Pineiro and M Ramırez ldquoSoil qualityattributes of conservation management regimes in a semi-aridregion of south western Spainrdquo Soil and Tillage Research vol 95no 1-2 pp 255ndash265 2007

[8] KKhurshidM IqbalM SArif andANawaz ldquoEffect of tillageand mulch on soil physical properties and growth of maizerdquoInternational Journal of Agriculture and Biology vol 8 pp 593ndash596 2006

[9] R Lal and B A Stewart Eds Principles of Sustainable SoilMan-agement in Agroecosystems vol 20 CRC Press 2013

[10] R Lal ldquoTillage effects on soil degradation soil resilience soilquality and sustainabilityrdquo Soil and Tillage Research vol 27 no1ndash4 pp 1ndash8 1993

[11] M Iqbal A U Hassan A Ali and M Rizwanullah ldquoResidualeffect of tillage and farm manure on some soil physical proper-ties and growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L)rdquo InternationalJournal of Agriculture and Biology vol 1 pp 54ndash57 2005

[12] M Rashidi and F Keshavarzpour ldquoEffect of different tillagemethods on grain yield and yield components of maize (Zeamays L)rdquo International Journal of Rural Development vol 2 pp274ndash277 2007

[13] F U H Khan A R Tahir and I J Yule ldquoIntrinsic implicationof different tillage practices on soil penetration resistance andcrop growthrdquo International Journal of Agriculture and Biologyvol 1 pp 23ndash26 2001

[14] D S Powlson A Bhogal B J Chambers et al ldquoThe potentialto increase soil carbon stocks through reduced tillage ororganic material additions in England and Wales a case studyrdquoAgriculture Ecosystems and Environment vol 146 no 1 pp 23ndash33 2012

[15] C Plaza D Courtier-Murias J M Fernandez A Polo and AJ Simpson ldquoPhysical chemical and biochemical mechanismsof soil organic matter stabilization under conservation tillagesystems a central role for microbes and microbial by-productsin C sequestrationrdquo Soil Biology and Biochemistry vol 57 pp124ndash134 2013

[16] K L Sharma J K Grace R Milakh et al ldquoImprovement andassessment of soil quality under long-term conservation agri-cultural practices in hot arid tropical aridisolrdquoCommunicationsin Soil Science and Plant Analysis vol 44 no 6 pp 1033ndash10552013

[17] F E Rhoton ldquoInfluence of time on soil response to no-till prac-ticesrdquo Soil Science Society of America Journal vol 64 no 2 pp700ndash709 2000

[18] L K Mann ldquoChanges in soil carbon storage after cultivationrdquoSoil Science vol 142 pp 279ndash288 1986

[19] M Al-Kaisi ldquoImpact of tillage and crop rotation systems on soilcarbon sequestrationrdquo Iowa State University Ames Iowa USA2001

[20] P Shah K R Dahal S K Shah and D R Dangol ldquoEffect oftillage mulch and time of nitrogen application on the yield ofwheat (Triticum aestivum L)rdquoAgriculture Development Journalvol 8 pp 9ndash19 2011

[21] M M Rahman and S L Ranamukhaarachchi ldquoFertility statusand possible environmental consequences of Tista Floodplainsoils in Bangladeshrdquo Thammasaltn International Journal ofScience and Technology vol 8 no 3 pp 11ndash19 2003

[22] BARC (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council) Agricul-tural Research PriorityVision 2030 and beyondmdasha final Reportby M Jahiruddin (Professor Department of Soil ScienceBangladesh Agricultural University) and M A Satter (ChiefScientific Officer Land and Soil Resource Management BARCBangladesh) Sub sector Land and Soil Resource ManagementBangladesh Agril Res Council Farmgate Dhaka 2010

[23] M K Alam Effect of tillage depths and cropping patterns onsoil properties and crop productivity [MS thesis] Departmentof Soil Science Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agri-cultural University 2010

[24] SRDI ldquoBhumi and Mrittika Sampad Bhavohar NirdeshikaGazipur Sadar Upazila Gazipur Zillardquo Soil Resource Devel-opment Institute Ministry of Agriculture Government of thePeoples Republic of Bangladesh 2005

[25] BARC (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council) FertilizerRecommendation Guide-2005 vol 45 of Soils Pub BangladeshAgricultural Research Council Farmgate Bangladesh 2005

[26] C A Black Method of Soil Analysis Part-I and II AmericanSociety of Agronomy Madison Wis USA 1965

[27] P Ghosh ldquoInstitute of agriculture Visva-Bharati Srinike tan-731-236 West Bengal Indiardquo Indian Journal of AgriculturalResearch vol 32 pp 75ndash80 1983

[28] M L Jackson Soil Chemical Analysis Constable and Co LtdPrentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd New Delhi India 1973

[29] W L Lindsay andW A Norvell ldquoDevelopment of a DTPA testfor zinc iron manganese and copperrdquo Soil Science Society ofAmerican Journal vol 42 pp 421ndash428 1978

[30] Z Karim S M Rahman M I Ali and A J M S KarimSoil Bulk Density A Manual for Determination of Soil PhysicalParameters Soils and Irrigation Division BARC 1988

[31] J J Schuurman and M A J Goodewaagen Methods for theExamination of Root Systems and Roots Centre of AgriculturalPublishing andDocumentationWageningenTheNetherlands2nd edition 1971

[32] R C B Steel and J H Torii Principles and Procedures of Sta-tistics Mc Graw Hall New York NY USA 1960

[33] H Jin L Hongwen W Xiaoyan et al ldquoThe adoption of annualsubsoiling as conservation tillage in dryland maize and wheatcultivation in northern Chinardquo Soil and Tillage Research vol94 no 2 pp 493ndash502 2007

[34] G Sarwar H Schmeisky N Hussain S Muhammad MIbrahim and E Safdar ldquoImprovement of soil physical andchemical properties with compost application in rice-wheatcropping systemrdquo Pakistan Journal of Botany vol 40 no 1 pp275ndash282 2008


[35] J He QWang H Li et al ldquoSoil physical properties and infiltra-tion after long-term no-tillage and ploughing on the ChineseLoess Plateaurdquo New Zealand Journal of Crop and HorticulturalScience vol 37 no 3 pp 157ndash166 2009

[36] A J Franzluebbers J A Stuedemann H H Schomberg andS R Wilkinson ldquoSoil organic C and N pools under long-termpasture management in the Southern Piedmont USArdquo Soil Bio-logy and Biochemistry vol 32 no 4 pp 469ndash478 2000

[37] B S Brar K Singh and G S Dheri ldquoCarbon sequestration andsoil carbon pools in a rice-wheat cropping system effect of long-term use of inorganic fertilizers and organic manurerdquo Soil ampTillage Research vol 128 pp 30ndash36 2013

[38] Z Yang L Zhou Y LvH Li D Sun andMYu ldquoSoil aggregatesfeatures under different tillage systems in North China plainrdquoAdvanced Science Letters vol 19 no 9 pp 2761ndash2766 2013

[39] J Ruhlmann M Korschens and J Graefe ldquoA new approach tocalculate the particle density of soils considering properties ofthe soil organic matter and the mineral matrixrdquo Geoderma vol130 no 3-4 pp 272ndash283 2006

[40] S B Zhang and C C Song ldquoEffects of different land-use onsoil physical-chemical properties in the Sanjiang PlainrdquoChineseJournal of Soil Science vol 3 pp 25ndash30 2004 (Chinese)

[41] B Y Zhu J H Huang Y Y Huang and J Liu ldquoEffect ofcontinuous tillage-free practice on the grain yield of semilaterice and soil physicochemical propertyrdquo Fujian Journal of Agri-cultural Science vol 14 pp 159ndash163 1999

[42] O Fernandez-Ugalde I Virto P Bescansa M J Imaz AEnrique andD L Karlen ldquoNo-tillage improvement of soil phy-sical quality in calcareous degradation-prone semiarid soilsrdquoSoil and Tillage Research vol 106 no 1 pp 29ndash35 2009

[43] A J Fernandez-Ugalde ldquoWater infiltration and soil structurerelated to organic matter and its stratification with depthrdquo Soiland Tillage Research vol 66 no 2 pp 197ndash205 2002

[44] A Schwen G Bodner P Scholl G D Buchan and WLoiskandl ldquoTemporal dynamics of soil hydraulic properties andthe water-conducting porosity under different tillagerdquo Soil andTillage Research vol 113 no 2 pp 89ndash98 2011

[45] PWUnger ldquoInfiltration of simulated rainfall tillage system andcrop residue effectsrdquo Soil Science Society of American Journalvol 56 no 1 pp 283ndash289 1992

[46] R Sonnleitner E Lorbeer and F Schinner ldquoEffects of strawvegetable oil and whey on physical and microbiological prop-erties of a chernozemrdquo Applied Soil Ecology vol 22 no 3 pp195ndash204 2003

[47] E T Ekwue ldquoQuantification of the effect of peat on soil det-achment by rainfallrdquo Soil and Tillage Research vol 23 no 1-2pp 141ndash151 1992

[48] A J Franzluebbers ldquoSoil organicmatter stratification ratio as anindicator of soil qualityrdquo Soil and Tillage Research vol 66 no 2pp 95ndash106 2002

[49] X Y Wang H W Gao B Du and H W Li ldquoConservationtillage effect on runoff and infiltration under simulated rainfallrdquoJournal of Soil Water Conservation vol 3 pp 23ndash25 2000(Chinese)

[50] N N Kulikova A N Suturin A M Antonenko S M Boikoand L F Paradina ldquoOrganomineral composts from the wastesof the pulp and paper industry and their effect on soil fertilityrdquoEurasian Soil Science vol 29 no 7 pp 836ndash840 1996

[51] U K Mandal G Singh U S Victor and K L Sharma ldquoGreenmanuring its effect on soil properties and crop growth underricemdashWheat cropping systemrdquo European Journal of Agronomyvol 19 no 2 pp 225ndash237 2003

[52] A E Hassan Y Kitamura E S Ahmed G Samir and MIrshad ldquoEffect of irrigation schedules and tillage systems on riceproductivity and soil physical characteristicsmdasha case study inthe north Nile Delta Egyptrdquo in Proceedings of the 19th Inter-national Congress on Irrigation and Drainage Beijing ChinaSeptember 2005

[53] M M Parker and D H van Lear ldquoSoil heterogeneity and rootdistribution of mature loblolly pine stands in Piedmont soilsrdquoSoil Science Society of America Journal vol 60 no 6 pp 1920ndash1925 1996

[54] S M K Alam and M A Matin ldquoImpact of tillage and rootgrowth of yield of rice in a Silt Loam soilrdquo Journal of BiologicalSciences vol 2 pp 548ndash550 2002

[55] K Y Chan and D P Heenan ldquoThe effects of stubble burningand tillage on soil carbon sequestration and crop productivityin south eastern Australiardquo Soil Use and Management vol 21pp 427ndash431 2005

[56] J Wu Z L Zhong J G Zheng and X L Jiang ldquoInfluencesof residue mulching treatment on soil physical and chemicalproperties and crop yields in SWChinardquo Journal of AgriculturalScience vol 2 pp 192ndash195 2006 (Chinese)

[57] G ZMa andH Tong ldquoThe study and analyzing of the affectionto the winter wheat by conservation agricultural technologyin the dry land farming areardquo Agricultural MechanizationResearch vol 5 pp 139ndash142 2007

[58] A L Wright F Dou and F M Hons ldquoSoil organic C and Ndistribution for wheat cropping systems after 20 years of con-servation tillage in central Texasrdquo Agriculture Ecosystems andEnvironment vol 121 no 4 pp 376ndash382 2007

[59] A Hemmat and I Eskandari ldquoConservation tillage practicesfor winter wheat-fallow farming in the temperate continentalclimate of northwestern Iranrdquo Field Crops Research vol 89 no1 pp 123ndash133 2004

[60] J E Hammel ldquoLong-term tillage and crop rotation effects onwinter wheat production in Northern Idahordquo Agronomy Jour-nal vol 87 no 1 pp 16ndash22 1995

[61] A M Urioste G G Hevia E N Hepper L E Anton A ABono andD E Buschiazzo ldquoCultivation effects on the distribu-tion of organic carbon total nitrogen and phosphorus in soilsof the semiarid region of Argentinian Pampasrdquo Geoderma vol136 no 3-4 pp 621ndash630 2006

[62] A Roldan J R Salinas-Garcıa M M Alguacil E Dıaz andF Caravaca ldquoSoil enzyme activities suggest advantages of con-servation tillage practices in sorghum cultivation under sub-tropical conditionsrdquo Geoderma vol 129 no 3-4 pp 178ndash1852005

[63] G A Thomas R C Dalal and J Standley ldquoNo-till effects onorganic matter pH cation exchange capacity and nutrient dis-tribution in a Luvisol in the semi-arid subtropicsrdquo Soil andTillage Research vol 94 no 2 pp 295ndash304 2007

[64] J I Reyes P Silva E Martınez and E Acevedo ldquoLabranzaypropiedades de un suelo aluvial deChileCentralrdquo inProceedingsdel IX Congreso Nacional de la Ciencia del Suelo pp 78ndash81Sociedad Nacional de la Ciencia del Suelo Talca Chile 2002

[65] D C Reicosky W D Kemper G W Langdale C L Douglasand P E Rasmussen ldquoSoil organic matter changes resultingfrom tillage and biomass productionrdquo Journal of Soil andWaterConservation vol 50 no 3 pp 253ndash261 1995

[66] R Lal J M Kimble R F Follett and C V ColeThe Potential ofUS Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the GreenhouseEffect Ann Arbor Press Chelsea Mich USA 1998


[67] Y C Liao S M Han and X X Wen ldquoSoil water content andcrop yield effects of mechanized conservative tillage-cultivationsystem for dryland winter wheat in the loess tablelandrdquo Trans-actions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering vol 18no 4 pp 68ndash71 2002 (Chinese)

[68] S P Xue Q Yan R X Zhu H QWang andW S Yao ldquoExper-imental study on conservation tillage technology of completecorn stalk cover by mechanization and furrow sowing besidefilmmulchingrdquo Transactions of Chinese Science Agriculture andEngineering vol 7 pp 81ndash83 2005 (Chinese)

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Nutrition and Metabolism

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Food ScienceInternational Journal of

Agronomy


International Journal of



Microbiology

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

AgricultureAdvances in


PsycheHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of


ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

GenomicsInternational Journal of


Plant GenomicsInternational Journal of


Biotechnology Research International


Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of


Journal of BotanyHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcologyInternational Journal of


Veterinary Medicine International


Cell BiologyInternational Journal of


Evolutionary BiologyInternational Journal of



disturbance by conventional tillage gives birth to a finer andloose-setting soil structure while conservation and no-tillagemethods leave the soil intact [12] This difference results in achange of characteristics of the pores network The numbersize and distribution of pores again control the ability of soilto store and diffuse air water and agricultural chemicals andthus in turn regulate erosion runoff and crop performance[13] Losses of soil organic C (SOC) and deterioration inother properties exaggerated where conventional tillage wasemployed [14] With time conservation tillage on the otherhand improves soil quality indicators [15] including SOCstorage [16]

During the first 4 years of tillage Rhoton [17] determineda 10 loss of initial soil organic matter content with ploughtillage Mann [18] also estimated the soil organic matterdepletion between 16 and 77 caused by the tillage In mostinstances increased levels of tillage or increased tillage peri-ods resulted in reductions of soil carbonWhen conventionaltillage is converted to conservation tillage both CO

2emis-

sions from soil andNuptake by the crop are reduced Al-Kaisi[19] reported that reducing tillage significantly decreases SOCloss from soils with high organic matter content Continuouscultivation for cereal cropping in the major cereal growingareas of Bangladesh leads to lowering the nutritional statusof soil in most of the areas Hence the depletion of SOC andN concerned has taken place a problem which needs to bemanaged through N fixation by the plant In this situationleguminous crop such as mungbean can fix N in the range of30ndash40 kgNhaminus1 [20]

Cropping system has an immense effect on physical andchemical soil properties and thereby on crop productivity[21] Soil fertility often changes in response to land use andcropping systems and landmanagement practices [22] Inten-sive cropping promotes high levels of nutrient extractionfrom soils without natural replenishment Limited practicesof legume green manure and jute based cropping patternshave led to depletion of soil organic matter content in soilsof Bangladesh [23] Use of green manure especially legumesin a cropping pattern could help restore crop productivityThe major cereal cropping system of South Asia is rice andwheat grown on the same field but in different seasons duringone year Currently about 12 million hectares of land inPakistan Nepal India and Bangladesh use this croppingpattern accounting for nearly one-fourth of the regionrsquoscereal production After rice wheat has become an impor-tant component of cropping pattern in Bangladesh whichis cultivated mostly after aman rice (lowland rice grownin the wet season from June to November in Bangladeshand east India) Crop production could be increased byadopting appropriate tillage operation and selecting suitablecrops in the cropping pattern including leguminous cropswhich demands intensive field research [23 24] Whetherconservation tillage practice performs better than the long-practiced traditional tillage practices in terms of improve-ment of edaphic and yield influencing characters of thespecific and unearth soil-water-plant ecosystem of the regionis still unknown As the conservation tillage practices havebeen reported to manipulate soil positively they could alsobe a solution of poorly managed soil condition in the region

Gazipur district

Figure 1 Geographical position of ⊚ Gazipur district (larr)

of rice-wheat cropping system Effect of medium-term tillagepractices on soil properties in Grey Terrace soil under wheat-mungbean-T aman (the tall traditional rice some of whichis deep water rice) cropping system has not been reportedThe present study therefore has been initiated with thefollowing objectivesThe specific objective of the study was toobserve howmany cropping cycleswould be required to buildup organic matter (OM) in soil and the general objectiveswere (1) to evaluate the effects of tillage practices on soilhydrophysical properties (2) to study the effect of tillagepractices on the yield performances of wheat-mungbean-Taman cropping system and (3) to study the medium-termeffect of tillage practices on organic matter status of soil

2 Materials and Methods

21 Study Area The field experiment was conducted at theBangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) GazipurBangladesh for the four consecutive years from 2008 to 2012The physical characteristics and chemical status of the initialsoil are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectivelyThe experimen-tal site is located at the centre of the agroecological zone ofMadhupur tract (AEZ-28) at about 24∘ 231015840 north latitude and90∘ 081015840 east longitude having a mean elevation of 84m abovemean sea level The soil belongs to the Chhiata series of theGrey Terrace soils (Aeric Albaquept) under the order Incepti-sols in the USDA Soil Taxonomy [24 25]Themorphologicaland taxonomical characteristics of the experimental site areshown in Table 1 The textural class was clay loam havingsoil pH 57 and the land type is medium high Geographicalposition of Gazipur district is presented in Figure 1

The climate of the experimental area was subtropical wetand humid Heavy rainfall occurs in the monsoon and isscarce in other times The climatic data of the study areafor the period from 2008 to 2012 indicates that the meanannual rainfall is above 1600mm of which 722 is receivedduring the main growing season (Kharif one of the threeseasons in Bengali crop calendar starting from mid-March
















0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Rain

fall

mon

th (m

m)


Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r







120P35

K75

S20

Zn2 N20

P10K13

S5 and

N90

P18

K48

S75










10

20

30

40


Tem

pera

ture

mon

th (∘

C)

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

(a)

20

40

60

80

100

120

Months

Relat

ive h

umid

itym

onth

()

DayNight

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

(b)



4were






4OAC extraction






132

136

140

144

148

152

156

160

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f bul

k de

nsity

(g cm

minus3)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)

250

252

254

256

258

260

262

264

Chan

ges o

f par

ticle

den

sity

(g cm

minus3)


2009

2010

2011

2012

(b)











mg cmminus3 (3)


3 Results





37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f soi

l por

osity

()

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Chan

ges o

f fiel

d ca

paci

ty (

)

(b)


0

4

8

12

16

20

ZT MT CT DT

Avai

labl

e wat

er co

nten

t (cm

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cum

ulat

ive i

nfiltr

atio

n ra

te (c

m hr

minus1)

(b)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Perm

anen

t wilt

ing

poin

t (

)

(c)



I = 3837t0458

R2= 0994


1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

(ZT)

(a)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3585t048

R2= 0994


(MT)

(b)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3916t0480

R2= 0996


(CT)

(c)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 5203t0440

R2= 0995

I = 2074mm hrminus1

(DT)

(d)





00

05

10

15

20

25

ZT MT CT DT

Org

anic

mat

ter c

onte

nt (

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

003

006

009

012

Tota

l nitr

ogen

()

(b)





































4 Discussion









ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b











5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014







































0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Rain

fall

mon

th (m

m)


Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r







120P35

K75

S20

Zn2 N20

P10K13

S5 and

N90

P18

K48

S75










10

20

30

40


Tem

pera

ture

mon

th (∘

C)

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

(a)

20

40

60

80

100

120

Months

Relat

ive h

umid

itym

onth

()

DayNight

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

(b)



4were






4OAC extraction






132

136

140

144

148

152

156

160

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f bul

k de

nsity

(g cm

minus3)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)

250

252

254

256

258

260

262

264

Chan

ges o

f par

ticle

den

sity

(g cm

minus3)


2009

2010

2011

2012

(b)











mg cmminus3 (3)


3 Results





37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f soi

l por

osity

()

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Chan

ges o

f fiel

d ca

paci

ty (

)

(b)


0

4

8

12

16

20

ZT MT CT DT

Avai

labl

e wat

er co

nten

t (cm

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cum

ulat

ive i

nfiltr

atio

n ra

te (c

m hr

minus1)

(b)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Perm

anen

t wilt

ing

poin

t (

)

(c)



I = 3837t0458

R2= 0994


1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

(ZT)

(a)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3585t048

R2= 0994


(MT)

(b)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3916t0480

R2= 0996


(CT)

(c)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 5203t0440

R2= 0995

I = 2074mm hrminus1

(DT)

(d)





00

05

10

15

20

25

ZT MT CT DT

Org

anic

mat

ter c

onte

nt (

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

003

006

009

012

Tota

l nitr

ogen

()

(b)





































4 Discussion









ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b











5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014






























10

20

30

40


Tem

pera

ture

mon

th (∘

C)

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

(a)

20

40

60

80

100

120

Months

Relat

ive h

umid

itym

onth

()

DayNight

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

(b)



4were






4OAC extraction






132

136

140

144

148

152

156

160

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f bul

k de

nsity

(g cm

minus3)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)

250

252

254

256

258

260

262

264

Chan

ges o

f par

ticle

den

sity

(g cm

minus3)


2009

2010

2011

2012

(b)











mg cmminus3 (3)


3 Results





37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f soi

l por

osity

()

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Chan

ges o

f fiel

d ca

paci

ty (

)

(b)


0

4

8

12

16

20

ZT MT CT DT

Avai

labl

e wat

er co

nten

t (cm

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cum

ulat

ive i

nfiltr

atio

n ra

te (c

m hr

minus1)

(b)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Perm

anen

t wilt

ing

poin

t (

)

(c)



I = 3837t0458

R2= 0994


1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

(ZT)

(a)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3585t048

R2= 0994


(MT)

(b)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3916t0480

R2= 0996


(CT)

(c)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 5203t0440

R2= 0995

I = 2074mm hrminus1

(DT)

(d)





00

05

10

15

20

25

ZT MT CT DT

Org

anic

mat

ter c

onte

nt (

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

003

006

009

012

Tota

l nitr

ogen

()

(b)





































4 Discussion









ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b











5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014

























132

136

140

144

148

152

156

160

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f bul

k de

nsity

(g cm

minus3)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)

250

252

254

256

258

260

262

264

Chan

ges o

f par

ticle

den

sity

(g cm

minus3)


2009

2010

2011

2012

(b)











mg cmminus3 (3)


3 Results





37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f soi

l por

osity

()

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Chan

ges o

f fiel

d ca

paci

ty (

)

(b)


0

4

8

12

16

20

ZT MT CT DT

Avai

labl

e wat

er co

nten

t (cm

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cum

ulat

ive i

nfiltr

atio

n ra

te (c

m hr

minus1)

(b)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Perm

anen

t wilt

ing

poin

t (

)

(c)



I = 3837t0458

R2= 0994


1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

(ZT)

(a)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3585t048

R2= 0994


(MT)

(b)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3916t0480

R2= 0996


(CT)

(c)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 5203t0440

R2= 0995

I = 2074mm hrminus1

(DT)

(d)





00

05

10

15

20

25

ZT MT CT DT

Org

anic

mat

ter c

onte

nt (

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

003

006

009

012

Tota

l nitr

ogen

()

(b)





































4 Discussion









ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b











5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014

























37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

ZT MT CT DT

Chan

ges o

f soi

l por

osity

()

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Chan

ges o

f fiel

d ca

paci

ty (

)

(b)


0

4

8

12

16

20

ZT MT CT DT

Avai

labl

e wat

er co

nten

t (cm

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cum

ulat

ive i

nfiltr

atio

n ra

te (c

m hr

minus1)

(b)


2009

2010

2011

2012

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

Perm

anen

t wilt

ing

poin

t (

)

(c)



I = 3837t0458

R2= 0994


1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

(ZT)

(a)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3585t048

R2= 0994


(MT)

(b)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3916t0480

R2= 0996


(CT)

(c)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 5203t0440

R2= 0995

I = 2074mm hrminus1

(DT)

(d)





00

05

10

15

20

25

ZT MT CT DT

Org

anic

mat

ter c

onte

nt (

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

003

006

009

012

Tota

l nitr

ogen

()

(b)





































4 Discussion









ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b











5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014

























I = 3837t0458

R2= 0994


1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

(ZT)

(a)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3585t048

R2= 0994


(MT)

(b)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 3916t0480

R2= 0996


(CT)

(c)

1

10

100

1000

1 100 10000

Infil

trat

ion

(mm

)

Time (h)

I = 5203t0440

R2= 0995

I = 2074mm hrminus1

(DT)

(d)





00

05

10

15

20

25

ZT MT CT DT

Org

anic

mat

ter c

onte

nt (

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

003

006

009

012

Tota

l nitr

ogen

()

(b)





































4 Discussion









ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b











5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014

























00

05

10

15

20

25

ZT MT CT DT

Org

anic

mat

ter c

onte

nt (

)

Tillage practices

2009

2010

2011

2012

(a)


2009

2010

2011

2012

003

006

009

012

Tota

l nitr

ogen

()

(b)





































4 Discussion









ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b











5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014





















































4 Discussion









ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b











5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014



























ZT 1399a 1496a 1854a 2032a 897 897 936 1053a 1400a 1612a 1723a 1889a

MT 1397a 1413a 1543b 1853b 897 858 819 897b 1356ab 1527ab 1521b 1589b

CT 1321a 1392a 1490b 1486c 858 780 819 780c 1332ab 1423bc 1443b 1445b

DT 1265a 1321a 1376b 1432c 858 780 780 741c 1252b 1352c 1408b 1405b











5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014



























5 Conclusions



Abbreviations




Acknowledgments


References










































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014
































































































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014
























effect of tillage practices on soil properties and crop productivity in

Documents