effects of tillage methods on penetration resistance, bulk density and saturated hydraulic...

7/27/2019 Effects of Tillage Methods on Penetration Resistance, Bulk Density and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in a Clayey Soil Conditions

1/14

TarmBilimleriDergisiTar.Bil.Der.

Dergiwebsayfas:www.agri.ankara.edu.tr/dergi

JournalofAgriculturalSciencesJournalhomepage:

www.agri.ankara.edu.tr/journal

Effects of Tillage Methods on Penetration Resistance, Bulk Densityand Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity in a Clayey Soil Conditions

smail ELKaaCukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 01330 Adana, TURKEY

ARTICLE INFO

Research Article Agricultural Technologies

Corresponding author: smail ELK, e-mail: [email protected], Tel: +90(322) 338 66 43/105Received: 30 May 2011, Received in revised form: 13 September 2011, Accepted: 19 September 2011

ABSTRACT

Effects of six tillage practices on saturated hydraulic conductivity (HC), soil bulk density (BD), and penetrationresistance (PR) were evaluated for a clayey soil (Typic Haploxererts) under semi-arid Mediterranean conditions ina three year study (2006-2009). The experiment was conducted on a randomized complete block design with threereplicates. Treatments were: conventional tillage with residue incorporated (CTS), conventional tillage with residueburned (CTB), reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc harrow (RTD), reduced tillage with rotary tiller (RTR),reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc harrow for the first crop + no-tillage for the second crop (RNT), and notillage (NT). The study was conducted in wheat-corn, wheat-soybean and wheat crop rotations. The tillage effectson HC, BD and PR were significant at soil depth of 0-30 cm. The hydraulic conductivity was higher in CTS, andfollowed by CTB, RTR, RTD, RNT and NT practices, respectively. The hydraulic conductivity values under NT in

2007 and 2008 were 20% and 30% lower at 0-30 cm depth compared with CTS, respectively. The conventionaltillage treatments in the semi-arid conditions improved the HC with decreasing BD and PR of the clayey soil. TheBD and PR values were higher under NT treatments than the tilled plots and increased with depth. The values osoil compaction indicators were significantly greater under no-tillage and reduced tillage as compared to thoseunder conventional tillage in all soil depths studied.

Keywords: Soil bulk density; Hydraulic conductivity; Penetration resistance; Tillage practices

Killi Toprak Koullarnda Toprakleme Yntemlerinin PenetrasyonDirenci, Hacim Arl ve Hidrolikletkenlie Etkileri

ESER BLGS

Arat

rma Makalesi

Tar

m TeknolojileriSorumlu Yazar: smail ELK, e-posta: [email protected], Tel: +90(322) 338 66 43/105Geli tarihi: 30 Mays 2011, Dzeltmelerin gelii: 13 Eyll 2011, Kabul: 19 Eyll 2011

ZET

Alt farkl toprak ileme ynteminin yllk srede (20062009) yar-kurak Akdeniz iklim koullarnda killi birtoprakta (Typic Haploxererts) doymu hidrolik iletkenlik, hacim arl ve penetrasyon direncine etkilerideerlendirilmitir. Aratrma tesadf parseller desenine gre tekerrrl olarak yrtlmtr. Toprak ileme

TARIM

B

L

M

LER

DERG

S

J

OURNALO

FAGRICULTURALSCIENCES17(2011)143

156


2/14

EffectsofTillageMethodsonPenetrationResistance,BulkDensityandSaturatedHydraulicConductivity,elik

Tar m Bi l im le r i D e rg is i Journ a l ofAgr ic u l tura l S c ie n c e s 17(2011)143156144

uygulamalar olarak: Anzl geleneksel toprak ileme (CTS), anzlar yaklm geleneksel toprak ileme (CTB), ardiskli trmkl azaltlm toprak ileme (RTD), rototillerli azaltlm toprak ileme (RTR), birinci rn iin ardiskli trmkl azaltlm ileme + ikinci rn iin sfr toprak ileme (RNT) ve sfr toprak ileme (NT) yntemleri

kullanlmtr. Aratrmada buday-msr, buday-soya ve buday rotasyonu uygulanmtr. Toprak ilemeuygulamalarnn farkl derinliklerde doymu hidrolik iletkenlik, hacim arl ve penetrasyon direnlerillmtr. Toprak ileme uygulamalarnn 030 cm toprak derinliinde hidrolik iletkenlik, hacim arl vepenetrasyon direncine nemli etkileri belirlenmitir. Hidrolik iletkenlik en yksek CTS altnda belirlenmi ve bunusrasyla CTB, RTR, RTD, RNT ve NT izlemitir. 2007 ve 2008 ylnda 030 cm derinlikteki hidrolik iletkenlideerleri, NT uygulamalarnda CTSe gre srasyla %20 ve %30 daha dk bulunmutur. Geleneksel toprakileme uygulamalar yar-kurak iklim koullarnda hacim arln ve penetrasyon direncini azaltarak hidrolikiletkenlii arttrmtr. NT uygulamasnda elde edilen hacim arl ve penetrasyon diren deerleri ilenentopraklara gre daha yksek bulunmu ve bu deerler derinlikle birlikte artmtr. Toprak skmasnn gstergeleriolan deerler ilenmeyen ve azaltlm ileme uygulamalar altnda geleneksel ileme uygulamalarna gre btnderinliklerde nemli lde yksek bulunmutur.

Anahtar szckler: Toprak hacim arl; Hidrolik iletkenlik; Penetrasyon direnci; Toprak ileme uygulamalar

Ankara niversitesi Ziraat Fakltesi

1. Introduction

Conventional tillage is a common practice ofukurova region located in the EasternMediterranean coastal area of Turkey. Doublecrop rotational systems, wheat-corn or wheat-soybean intensive agricultural practices areusually preferred in the region. The winter crop,wheat is sown in mid-November and harvested ataround mid-June. Soil is tilled after wheat harvestfor the second crop corn, soybean, cotton orpeanut. Farmers mostly burn the stubble to fastenthe planting process of second crop. The burntfield is tilled 3 to 5 times with chisel+disc harrowor moulboard plow+disc harrow preceding thefirst and the second crop harvests. Although, rareexamples of conservational tillage methods areapplied in the region, no-tillage is not practiced incrop production.

The producers usually till soil to create a looseand uniform seedbed prior to planting. The degreeof loosening is closely related to soil texture, soilmoisture content, and the type of tillage operation.

Some of soil physical properties affected byloosening are bulk density, soil strength,infiltration, water redistribution within the soilprofile and the moisture retention (Osunbitan et al2005). Tillage treatments affect crop growth andyield by altering bulk density, compaction andhydraulic properties of the soils. Desired plantgrowth depends on rooting ability, nutrient statusand accessibility of roots to nutrients, soil

aeration, and water availability. Availability ofwater is restricted severe soil compaction. Plantsspend higher energy to extract water from soil dueto decreased pore size or lack of pore continuitycaused by compaction. Excessive compactionadversely affects crop yields, increase tillageenergy requirements, accelerate erosion, andcause inefficient use of water and nutrients due toslow subsoil drainage. Additional field operationsand energy may be required to remove soilcompaction (Johnson & Bailey 2002).

The effects of tillage on soil hydraulicproperties have been reported by several authors,as shown by the results of Heard et al (1988),Chan & Heenan (1993), McGarry et al (2000) andZhang et al (2006). Seventy percent of a field ispassed by vehicle traffic in a conventional tillagesystem (Raper & Kirby 2005). Soil bulk densityand penetration resistance increased with increasein the number of traffic passes while airpermeability was decreased with increase trafficintensity (Mamman & Ohu 1998). The hydraulicproperties of soils are affected by soil compaction

which leads to soil degradation (Zhang et al2006).

Reports on tillage effects on hydraulicconductivity are controversy. Some researchershave reported no or negative impact of tillage onsoil water characteristics (Obi & Nnabude 1988;Heard et al 1988), while others found beneficialeffects of zero-tillage on soil water retention


3/14

KilliToprakKoullarndaToprak lemeYntemlerininPenetrasyonDirenci,HacimArlveHidrolik,elik

Tar m Bi l im le r i D e rg is i Journ a l ofAgr ic u l tura l S c ie n c e s 17(2011)143156 145

(Blevins et al 1983; Datiri & Lowery 1991).Significant positive effect of zero-tillage on

hydraulic conductivity was reported due to theeither greater continuity of pores (Benjamin 1993)or water flow through a very few large pores(Sharratt et al 2006). Bhattacharyya et al (2006)compared the effects of no-tillage andconventional tillage practices in a four-year study,and reported that the hydraulic conductivityvalues were higher in no-tillage than tilled soils.However, Heard et al (1988) reported significanthigher hydraulic conductivities in tilled soils.Karlen et al (1994) reported no significantdifference in saturated hydraulic conductivity

under no-tillage corn with stover maintained,removed, and doubled in a 10-year study of siltloams. The inconsistent results of soil physicaland hydraulic properties under different tillagesystems may be related to the transitory nature ofsoil structure after tillage, site history, initial andfinal water content, the time of sampling and theextent of soil disturbances (Azooz & Arshad1996).

Soil compaction is an increase in the densityof soil and reduction in porosity, associated withan increase in strength and a reduction in

hydraulic conductivity. Soil compaction causesproblems including poor aeration, excessive soilstrength limiting root growth, drainage, excessiverunoff and erosion. Sometimes, however,compaction is desirable, because it can lead toimproved seed-soil contact, and hence bettergermination and growth of the seedling (Radford& Nielsen 1985). Green et al (2003) noted thatfield traffic had significant effects on soilcompaction and related hydraulic properties insome soils and climates, while in others,landscape and temporal variations were so strong

that any effects of wheel tracks were relativelynegligible. Sillon et al (2003) found that acalcareous soil had a higher hydraulicconductivity, across the whole range of waterratios tested, following a compaction treatment.Trends in soil bulk density are generallyconsidered a rough approximation of soilstructural changes (Liebig et al 2004). Several

studies have informed higher bulk density underno-tillage compared with tilled soil (Klute 1982;

Wu et al 1992). The soil bulk density decreasedwith the degree of soil manipulation during tillagepractices. Significantly lower soil bulk density inconventional tillage system could be due to theincorporation of crop residues by tillage to thesurface soil depth (Bhattacharyya et al 2006).

The effects of tillage practices on soil physicalproperties such as aggregation, bulk density,porosity, hydraulic properties, soil compaction,and water retention are variable. Information onchanges in soil hydraulic conductivity and soilstrength properties, especially in heavy clayey

soil, due to tillage practices is limited. Therefore,this study was performed to determine the effectsof conventional, reduced and no-tillage practiceson saturated hydraulic conductivity, soil bulkdensity and penetration resistance in wheat-corn-wheat-soybean rotations in a clay soil under semi-arid climatic conditions. Besides, comparison oftillage practices may be of great help for the long-term sustainability of agricultural ecosystemsunder semi-arid climatic conditions forMediterranean.

2. Materials and Methods2.1. Experimental site

A field experiment was carried out in the periodfrom 2006 to 2009 at the AgriculturalExperimental Station (37o0054 N, 35o2127 E;32 m above sea level) of the Cukurova University,Adana, Turkey. The prevailing climate of studyarea is Mediterranean with a long-term (30 years)mean annual temperature of 20 C andprecipitation is around 670 where the long-termmean annual potential evapotranspiration is 1500mm yr-1. The summers are hot and dry and the

winters are rainy and mild. The annual meantemperature between 2006 and 2009 was 19.2 C,the relative humidity was 70%, and theprecipitation was 563 mm. The experiment wason the Arik clay with a slope of about 1%. Thesoil had 50% clay , 32% silt and 18% sand at thedepth 0-30 cm (Celik et al 2009), and wasclassified as Typic Haploxererts (Soil Survey


4/14



Staff 1999). The soil had a pH of 7.82, bulkdensity of 1.31 Mg m-3, total organic carbon of

8.76 g kg

-1

, CaCO3 of 244 g kg

-1

, and electricalconductivity of 0.15 dS m-1(Celik et al 2009).

2.2. Experimental design and tillage systems

The study area has been used for continuouswheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production withconventional tillage for more than 30 years. Afterharvesting wheat in June 2006 field was preparedfor the trial. The experiment was a randomizedcomplete block design with three replications. Thetreatments were conventional tillage with residueincorporated in soil (CTS), conventional tillagewith residue burned (CTB), reduced tillage with

heavy tandem disc-harrow (RTD), reduced tillagewith rotary tiller (RTR), reduced tillage withheavy tandem disc harrow for the first crop + no-tillage for the second crop (RNT), and no tillage(NT). The plots were of 12-m width and 40-mlength (480 m2). The details of the six differenttillage and sowing methods used in the study aregiven in Table 1.

The rotations of winter wheat (Triticumaestivum L.)-corn (Zea Mays L), wheat-soybean(Glycine max. L.) and wheat were applied in alltreatments from 2006 to 2009. The crop rotationwas wheat-corn in the 2006-2007, wheat-soybeanin the 2007-2008 and wheat in the 2008-2009growing seasons, respectively. In each growingseason, the first crop was winter wheat and thesecond crop was corn and soybean in turn. Thegrowing period of winter wheat was fromNovember to the first week of June and for cornand soybean was from the second week of June tothe first week of October.

In the conventional tillage methods (CTS andCTB), following wheat harvest, farmers burn theresidues, and plough the soil as early as possiblefor a second crop corn or soybean. They applysimilar practices after the second crop to sowwinter wheat. Some farmers till the soilimmediately after harvesting the second cropwhile others leave residues on the soil surface fora while and then plough the soil with amoldboard. In the CTS, RTD and RTR practices,soil was tilled after the first and second crop and

residues were shredded on the plots. The residuesof the first and second crops were shredded and

left on the soil surface in NT system. Whereas, thestovers of the second crop were shredded, and soilwas tilled in RNT where the stubbles of the firstcrop were only chopped and left on soil surface(Table 1).

The total herbicide (500 g ha-1 Glyphosate)was used to control weeds in the NT and RNTtreatments two weeks prior to sowing. ComposedNP-fertilizers were applied in the seedbed at ratesof 172 kg N ha-1 and 55 kg P2O5 ha

-1 for wheat,250 kg N ha-1 and 60 kg P2O5 ha

-1 for corn, and120 kg N ha-1 and 40 kg P2O5 ha

-1 for soybean.

Winter wheat was sown in the first weeks ofNovember 2006, 2007, and 2008 at seeding rateof 240 kg ha-1 and harvested in the first weeks ofJune 2007, 2008, and 2009. Corn and soybeanwere sown in the third weeks of June andharvested in the second weeks of October 2007and 2008. The seeding rate of wheat was 240 kgha-1 in a row distance of 14 cm. Corn and soybeanwere sown at seeding rates of 8.4 and 23.6 plantsper m-2, respectively. The row distance was 70 cmfor corn and soybean, and seed spacings in a rowwere 17 cm for corn and 6 cm for soybean. Corn

and soybean were sprinkler-irrigated once inevery 13-day and nine times totally during thegrowing period. The amount of water applied foreach irrigation was identical for all treatments,and no irrigation water was applied to the wheat.

2.3. Soil sampling and analysis

In order to determine the effects of tillagepractices on soil properties, disturbed andundisturbed samples were collected three timesthroughout the research period from 0-10 cm, 10-20 cm and 20-30 cm depths. The first sampleswere taken in June 2006 following theestablishment of the plots. The second and thethird samples were taken immediately after theharvest of the second crop in the first weeks ofOctober 2007 and 2008, respectively.

Initial bulk density, saturated hydraulicconductivity and penetration resistance ofexperimental field (June 2006) were given inTable 2. The texture of the research area was


5/14



Table 1-Tillage methods, depth of tillage, and type of the equipments used in the studyizelge 1-Toprak ileme yntemleri, kullanlan ekipman eitleri ve ileme derinlikleri

Tillage Methods Winter wheat (November 2006, 2007, 2008) Second crop maize and soybean(June 2007, 2008)

Conventional tillagewith residueincorporated in thesoil (CTS)

Stover chopping of second crop

Mouldboard plough (30-33 cma, 6.5-7.0 km h-1 b)

Disc harrow (2 passes, 13-15 cm, 8-9 km h-1)Float (2 passes, 8-9 km h-1)Drill (4 cm, 5.5-6.0 km h-1)

Stubble chopping of wheatHeavy tandem disc harrow (18-20 cm, 7-8 km h-1)Disc harrow (2 passes, 13-15 cm, 8-9 km h-1)Float (2 passes, 8-9 km h-1)Planter ( 8 cm, 4-5 km h -1)

Conventional tillagewith residue burned(CTB)

Stover burning of second cropMouldboard plough (30-33 cm, 6.5-7.0 km h-1)Disc harrow (2 passes, 13-15 cm, 8-9 km h-1)Float (2 passes, 8-9 km h-1)Drill (4 cm, 5.5- 6.0 km h-1)

Stubble burning of wheatChisel plow (35-38 cm, 6.5-7.0 km h-1)Disc harrow (2 passes, 13-15 cm, 8-9 km h-1)Float (2 passes, 8-9 km h-1)Planter (8 cm, 4-5 km h-1)

Reduced tillage withheavy tandem discharrow (RTD)

Stover chopping of second cropHeavy tandem disc harrow (2 passes, 18-20 cm, 7-8 km h-1)Float (2 passes, 8-9 km h-1)Drill (4 cm 5.5-6.0 km h-1)

Stubble chopping of wheatRotary tiller (13-15 cm, 1.5-2.0km h-1)Float (2 passes, 8-9 km h-1)Planter (8 cm, 4-5 km h-1)

Reduced tillage withrotary tiller (RTR)

Stover chopping of second cropRotary tiller (13-15 cm, 1.5-2.0 km h-1)Float (2 passes, 8-9 km h-1)Drill (4 cm, 5.5-6.0 km h-1)

Stubble chopping of wheatRotary tiller (13-15 cm, 1.5-2.0 km h-1)Float (2 passes, 8-9 km h-1)Planter (8 cm, 4-5 km h-1)

Reduced tillage withheavy tandem discharrow + no-tillage(RNT)

Stover chopping of second cropHeavy tandem disc harrow (18-20 cm, 7-8 km h-1)Float (2 passes, 8-9 km h-1)Drill (4 cm, 5.5-6.0 km h-1)

Stubble chopping of wheatHerbicide treatmentNo-till planter (8 cm, 4.0-4.5 km h-1)

No-tillage(NT)

Stover chopping of second cropHerbicide treatmentNo-till drill (4 cm, 5.0-5.5 km h-1)

Stubble chopping of wheatHerbicide treatmentNo-till planter (8 cm, 4.0-4.5 km h-1)

a)Figure is average working depth of the equipments, and b) figure is average working speed of the equipments

homogeneous throughout the parcels, and nosignificant differences were determined at thethree depths. But, the mean bulk density (at depth10-20 cm) and penetration resistance (at depth 10-30 cm) values of tillage treatments were different.The mean bulk density, hydraulic conductivityand penetration resistance values of parcels fortreatments were ranged between 1.20 and 1.44 Mgm-3, 7.33 and 9.05 x10-6 m s-1, and 0.601 and0.984 MPa for 10-20 cm and 20-30 cm depths,respectively.

The twenty four undisturbed samples per

tillage treatment were collected. In order tosample RNT and NT parcels, the residue on thesoil surface was cleaned. Undisturbed soilsamples were taken using a steel cylinder of 100cm3 volume (5 cm in diameter, and 5.1 cm inheight). Bulk density and saturated hydraulicconductivity were determined from undisturbedsoil samples. The bulk density was measured by

the core method (Blake & Hartge 1986), andsaturated hydraulic conductivity was determinedby the falling-head method (Klute & Dirksen1986).

Soil penetration resistance was determined bya hand-pushing electronic cone penetrometer(Eijkelkamp Penetrologger 06.15.SA) followingASAE standard procedures (ASAE 1994), using acone with 2 cm2 base area, 60 included angle and80 cm driving shaft; readings were recorded at 10mm intervals. The measurements were performedat 6 points in each plot, following the maize and

soybean were harvested. Soil moisture contentand penetration resistance were measured at thesame time. In order to determine the soil moisturecontent, undisturbed soil samples were takenusing a steel cylinder of 100 cm3 volume fromeach parcel and depths of 0-15, 15-30 and 30-45cm. Soil gravimetric moisture content wascalculated from the weight difference between wet


6/14



Table 2-Initial values of some soil properties before different tillage treatments (June 2006)izelge 2-Farkl toprak ileme uygulamalarndan nce balangtaki (2006 ) baz toprak zellikleri

TillageTreatments* Depth,cm Bulk density, Mgm-3 Hydraulicconductivity, 10-6 m s-1 Penetrationresistance, MPaCTS 0-10 1.230.07a& 8.042.53 a 0.6050.23 aCTB 0-10 1.220.01 a 7.942.38 a 0.6010.06 aRTD 0-10 1.200.09 a 8.142.68 a 0.6240.06 aRTR 0-10 1.250.04 a 7.963.01 a 0.6270.16 aRNT 0-10 1.230.05 a 8.081.93 a 0.6760.12 aNT 0-10 1.240.03 a 8.012.97 a 0.6450.02 aCTS 10-20 1.300.06 ab 8.181.96 a 0.8900.11 bCTB 10-20 1.410.01 a 8.702.55 a 0.8300.16 cRTD 10-20 1.280.01 b 8.503.26 a 0.7500.20 dRTR 10-20 1.300.05 ab 8.542.71 a 0.8460.41 cRNT 10-20 1.310.05 ab 8.483.17 a 0.8200.05 cNT 10-20 1.370.07 ab 9.052.80 a 0.9350.08 a

CTS 20-30 1.320.01 a 7.36 2.81 a 0.9840.32 aCTB 20-30 1.440.07 a 7.662.53 a 0.9640.16 aRTD 20-30 1.350.02 a 7.453.61 a 0.7750.17 cRTR 20-30 1.400.03 a 7.702.73 a 0.8520.32 bcRNT 20-30 1.360.05 a 7.592.43 a 0.8920.09 abNT 20-30 1.400.04 a 7.332.61 a 0.8920.09 ab

*CTS: Conventional tillage with residue, CTB: Conventional tillage with residues burned, RTD: Reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc

harrow, RTR: Reduced tillage with rotary tiller, RNT: Reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc harrow for the fist crop+no-tillage for thesecond crop, NT: No tillage.

The numbers following indicate standard deviation.a-d

: Values in a same column followed by different letter are significantly different (Tukey,P 0.05).

and oven dry samples (72 h at 105 oC). The

volumetric moisture content was calculated bydividing the gravimetric moisture content to thesoil volume of 100 cm3. The average moisturecontents (volumetric) were given in Table 3.During the measurements of penetrationresistance, soils were at approximately permanentwilting point and cracks on soil surface were notdetected in parcels.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasapplied to assess the effects of tillage treatmentson saturated hydraulic conductivity, soil bulkdensity and penetration resistance and forvariances among soil tillage and depth. Followingthe ANOVA test, the Tukey test was performed tocompare differences in means of the parameters atsignificance level of P0.05. The statisticalanalyses were performed using SPSS software(version 9.0).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Soil bulk densityThe tillage applications did not lead significantdifferences on bulk density in the first year (2007)of the experiment however, bulk density in 2008was significantly different (P


7/14



Table 3-Means of soil moisture content (volumetric percentage) at the time of penetrationmeasurements for each year and depthizelge 3-Penatrasyon lmlerinin yapld andaki toprak nem ierikleri (% hacimsel)

Initially (June 2006) Maize (October 2007) Soybean (October 2008)Tillage

Treatments* 0-15 cm 15-30 cm 30-45 cm 0-15 cm 15-30 cm 30-45 cm 0-15 cm 15-30 cm 30-45 cm

CTS 23.32 a 24.72 a 25.90 a 24.96 a 25.57 a 26.48 a 22.27 a 22.61 a 23.44 aCTB 23.69 a 24.69 a 25.03 a 25.27 a 26.18 a 27.28 a 22.64 a 23.07 a 24.08 aRTD 23.68 a 24.87 a 25.44 a 25.54 a 26.49 a 27.73 a 23.09 a 23.67 a 23.42 aRTR 22.66 a 24.09 a 24.84 a 25.55 a 26.36 a 27.77 a 22.44 a 23.16 a 23.77 aRNT 23.42 a 24.82 a 25.39 a 25.60 a 26.23 a 27.61 a 22.24 a 22.94 a 23.76 aNT 23.36 a 24.69 a 25.79 a 25.63 a 26.96 a 27.74 a 22.42 a 23.16 a 23.60 a*CTS: Conventional tillage with residue. CTB: Conventional tillage with residues burned. RTD: Reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc

harrow. RTR: Reduced tillage with rotary tiller. RNT: Reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc harrow for the fist crop+no-tillage for thesecond crop. NT: No tillage.a-a

:Values in a same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey,P0.05).

Generally, soil bulk density was increased inNT and RNT systems, while decreased inconventional tillage (CTS and CTB) systems.Kanwar (1989) and Meek et al (1992) reportedthat tillage systems have altered bulk density andporosity of soils. Decreasing the number, intensityand depth of tillage induced to obtain higher bulkdensity values (Table 4).

The increases in bulk density of the soil withno-tillage treatments have previously beenreported by Xu & Mermoud (2001). Contrastingresults have been reported for the effects of soiltillage systems on bulk density. Greater bulkdensity values under conventional tillage systemswere reported when compared to no-tillage (Dao1996; Roscoe & Buurman 2003).

When the results obtained at the end of thestudy (2008) were compared, bulk density valuesunder NT were 11.0-8.0%, 10.0-7.0% and 10.0-8.0% higher than those under CTS and CTB for 0-10 cm, 10-20 cm and 20-30 cm respectively(Table 4). Similarly, Dam et al (2005) found thatbulk density at 0-10 cm was 10% higher in no-

tillage (1.37 Mg m

-3

) than in conventional tillage(1.23 Mg m-3). Tebrgge & Dring (1999)reported bulk density of 1.2 to 1.35 Mg m-3 underinversion tillage and 1.4 to 1.5 Mg m-3 under no-tillage. Lower bulk density obtained in CTS andCTB than in RNT and NT might be attributed toshort term loosening effect of tillage andincorporation of crop residues into deeper soil(Bhattacharyya et al 2006).

3.2. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (HC)

The effects of tillage systems and the soil depthon HC were significantly different (P


8/14



Table 4-Effect of different tillage practices on saturated hydraulic conductivity and bulk density foreach year and depthizelge 4-Farkl toprak ileme uygulamalarnn doymu hidrolik iletkenlik ve hacim arlna etkileri

Bulk density, Mg m-3

Hydraulic cond., 10-6

m s-1

Tillage

Treatments*

Depth,

cm Maize

(October 2007)

Soybean

(October 2008)

Maize

(October 2007)

Soybean

(October 2008)

CTS 0-10 1.240.08 1.260.04 9.490.78 a 9.190.49

CTB 0-10 1.240.03 1.300.03 6.610.14 c 9.021.20RTD 0-10 1.300.06 1.310.01 7.640.62 abc 8.300.60RTR 0-10 1.320.03 1.320.02 8.580.99 ab 8.450.22RNT 0-10 1.330.05 1.380.02 7.020.66 bc 7.410.40NT 0-10 1.320.05 1.400.02 5.810.63 c 6.930.85CTS 10-20 1.330.06 1.270.03 8.240.95 a 8.680.63CTB 10-20 1.320.01 1.310.04 6.920.66 a 8.400.71RTD 10-20 1.360.07 1.320.02 7.890.99 a 6.970.12RTR 10-20 1.380.02 1.320.03 7.040.80 a 7.670.57

RNT 10-20 1.400.02 1.390.01 6.741.08 a 6.470.48NT 10-20 1.340.03 1.400.02 6.290.10 a 6.410.72CTS 20-30 1.390.02 1.290.02 5.040.04 b 7.200.15CTB 20-30 1.400.03 1.310.02 7.210.65 a 5.920.30RTD 20-30 1.370.08 1.340.01 4.530.20 bc 6.440.07RTR 20-30 1.410.02 1.350.03 4.580.18 bc 6.110.60RNT 20-30 1.410.05 1.400.02 4.580.03 bc 6.040.25NT 20-30 1.390.06 1.420.01 3.840.48 c 5.920.36Main effects (Means)

CTS 1.320.09 1.280.03 c 7.592.08 a 8.360.98aCTB 1.320.10 1.310.02 bc 6.910.54 ab 7.781.59 abRTD 1.340.08 1.320.02 b 6.681.73 ab 7.230.89 bcRTR 1.370.06 1.330.03 b 6.731.86 ab 7.411.12 bcRNT 1.380.07 1.390.02 a 6.111.32 bc 6.640.69 cd

NT 1.340.06 1.410.02 a 5.311.19 c 6.420.73 d0-10 cm 1.290.12 b 1.330.06 b 7.521.39 a 8.221.03a

10-20 cm 1.350.12 a 1.340.06 ab 7.180.98 a 7.431.03 b20-30 cm 1.390.12 a 1.350.06 a 4.961.13 b 6.270.54 c

PvaluesTillage 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000Depth 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.000Tillage Depth 0.833 0.998 0.000 0.054


harrow, RTR: Reduced tillage with rotary tiller, RNT: Reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc harrow for the fist crop+no-tillage for thesecond crop, NT: No tillage.The numbers following indicate standard deviation.

a-d:Values in a same column followed by different letter are significantly different (Tukey,P 0.05).

hydraulic conductivity compared withconventional tillage methods (Table 4). Some ofresults reported by others also agreed to ours.Heard et al (1988) attributed the greater hydraulicconductivity in conventionally tilled soils togreater number of voids and cracks caused bytillage implement. However, Chan & Mead(1989) noted that no-tilled soils had greater

hydraulic conductivity than tilled soils. On theother hand, no differences in hydraulicconductivity between conventional tillage,minimum tillage and no-tillage soils werereported by Horne et al 1992. We attributed thelower hydraulic conductivity in NT and RNTtreatments to high proportion of swelling clays inour soils; greater bulk density (Table 4), and


9/14



greater penetration resistance under no-tillage andreduced tillage (Table 5 and Figure 1).

Dawidovsky & Koolen (1987), Kutilek & Nielsen(1994), and Celik et al (2010) reported the soilcompaction causes to decrease saturated hydraulicconductivity in soils. High bulk density valuesobtained under no-tillage and reduced tillagesystems are the indications of soil compaction(Abu-Hamdeh 2003), and might be the cause oflow hydraulic conductivity obtained in no-tillageand reduced tillage systems (Table 4).

When the results of 2008 were compared, theaverage values of HC for CTS and CTB werehigher than in NT and RNT. These findings were

in agreement with the results reported by Obi &Nnabude (1988), Miller et al (1998), and Rahmanet al (2008) who reported significantly highervalues for saturated hydraulic conductivity in CTthan NT and reduced tillage. The inconsistentresults of soil physical and hydraulic propertiesunder different tillage systems may be related tothe transitory nature of soil structure after tillage,site history, initial and final water content, thetime of sampling and the extent of soildisturbances (Azooz & Arshad 1996).

3.3. Soil penetration resistance

Differences in soil moisture content betweentillage treatments at the time of penetrationmeasurements were insignificant (P>0.05) and noadjustments to the penetration data were thereforenecessary (Table 3). Hence, penetration resistancewas accepted a good representative parameter forsoil compaction under different tillage treatments.Average penetration resistance values of 010 cm,1120 cm, 2130 cm, and 3145 cm soil depthsfor different tillage treatments were given in Table5. The penetration resistance curves determinedfor 045 cm soil depth were also presented inFigure 1.

Tillage treatments and soil depth hadsignificant (P


10/14



Table 5-Effect of different tillage practices on penetration resistance for each year and depthizelge 5- Farkl toprak ileme uygulamalarnn penetrasyon direncine etkileri

Mean Penetration Resistance, MPaTillageTreatments* Depth,cm Maize (October 2007) Soybean (October 2008)

CTS 0-10 1.140.53 a 1.130.36CTB 0-10 1.480.69 a 1.040.36RTD 0-10 1.340.76 a 1.270.52RTR 0-10 1.620.82 a 1.370.43RNT 0-10 1.340.81 a 1.500.48NT 0-10 1.780.81 a 1.720.56CTS 11-20 1.930.68 e 1.440.26CTB 11-20 2.050.52 d 1.290.29RTD 11-20 2.310.51 c 1.660.39RTR 11-20 2.330.64 c 1.630.56RNT 11-20 2.460.52 b 1.690.52NT 11-20 2.670.22 a 1.790.10CTS 21-30 2.180.82 d 1.460.11

CTB 21-30 1.920.22 e 1.360.11RTD 21-30 2.280.26 bc 1.720.96RTR 21-30 2.250.40 cd 1.650.71RNT 21-30 2.340.34 b 1.720.56NT 21-30 2.710.69 a 1.710.48CTS 31-45 2.440.10 cd 1.880.12CTB 31-45 1.960.53 e 1.840.13RTD 31-45 2.400.95 d 1.990.74RTR 31-45 2.550.10 c 2.000.90RNT 31-45 2.690.14 b 2.110.14NT 31-45 2.890.88 a 2.000.92Main effects (Means)

CTS 1.960.57 cd 1.520.35 bCTB 1.860.40 d 1.430.37 bRTD 2.100.56 bc 1.690.37 a

RTR 2.220.53 b 1.700.32 aRNT 2.240.66 b 1.790.34 aNT 2.540.59 a 1.830.30 a

0-10 cm 1.450.04 c 1.340.03 c11-20 cm 2.290.04 b 1.580.03 b21-30 cm 2.280.04 b 1.600.03 b31-45 cm 2.490.03 a 1.970.02 a

PvaluesTillage 0.000 0.000Depth 0.000 0.000Tillage Depth 0.018 0.066


harrow, RTR: Reduced tillage with rotary tiller, RNT: Reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc harrow for the fist crop+no-tillage for thesecond crop, NT: No tillage.

The numbers following indicate standard deviation.a-e: Values in a same column followed by different letter are significantly different (Tukey,P 0.05).

loosening effect of tillage, and incorporation ofstubble/stover to soil surface layers.

The penetration resistance values were lowerin CTB compared to CTS especially at 21-45 cm,due to the use of the chisel for CTB after thesecond crop at 35-38 cm depth. After the corn

harvest in 2007, the average penetration resistancefor 0-45 cm, under NT was 29% and 36% higherthan the CTS and CTB, respectively. Similarly,after soybean harvesting in 2008 the penetrationresistance under NT was 20% and 28% higherthan the CTS and CTB, respectively.


11/14



Figure 1-Effects of tillage on soil penetration resistance at 0-45 cm soil depth of (A) after maize and (B)after soybean. CTS: Conventional tillage with residue, CTB: Conventional tillage with residues burned,

RTD: Reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc harrow, RTR: Reduced tillage with rotary tiller, RNT:Reduced tillage with heavy tandem disc harrow for the fist crop+no-tillage for the second crop, NT: Notillage. Values followed by the same letter in the same depth are not significantly different (Tukey,P0.05).ekil 1- Toprak ileme uygulamalarnn msr sonras (A) ve soya sonras (B) 045 cm toprak derinliinde

toprak penetrasyon direncine etkileri. CTS: Anzl geleneksel toprak ileme, CTB: anzlar yaklm geleneksel

toprak ileme, RTD: ar diskli trmkl azaltlm toprak ileme, RTR: rototillerli azaltlm toprak ileme,

RNT: birinci rn iin ar diskli trmkl azaltlm ileme + ikinci rn iin dorudan ekim ve NT: dorudan

ekimi

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

Penetration resistance (MPa)

Depth(cm)

CTS

CTB

RTD

RTR

RNT

NT

Depth (cm) CTS CTB RTD RTR RNT NT

0-10 a a a a a a

11-20 e d c c b a

21-30 d e bc cd b a

31-45 cd e d c b a

(A)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5

Penetration res istance (MPa)

Depth(cm

)

CTS

CTB

RTD

RTR

RNT

NT

Depth (cm) CTS CTB RTD RTR RNT NT

0-10 b b ab ab ab a

11-20 c d b b b a

21-30 b b a a a a

31-45 bc c ab ab a ab

(B)


12/14



4. ConclusionConventional tillage for two years in wheat-corn

and wheat-soybean rotations resulted in highersaturated hydraulic conductivity than no-tillageand reduced tillage for Arik heavy clayey soils(Typic Haploxererts), and this was attributedincreased bulk density and penetration resistancein no-tilled and reduced tilled soils. The hydraulicconductivity values under NT in 2007 and 2008were lower 20% and 30% at 0-30 cm depth thanthat in CTS, respectively.

Incorporating the residue into soils in CTSgenerally resulted in a greater hydraulicconductivity compared to residue burned (CTB) at

0-10 cm and 10-20 cm. The bulk density andpenetration resistance were significantly greaterunder no-tillage and reduced tillage than thoseunder conventional tillage at all depths studied.The soil bulk density and penetration resistancevalues were lower on the surface layers andincreased with depth under all tillage methods.The hydraulic conductivity was improved in tilledsoils due to decreased soil compaction and soilloosing.

The reduced tillage practices (RTD, RTR andRNT) had detrimental effects depending on

sampling periods and soil depth, and the soilcompaction under RNT was greater as comparedto the others. Despite the higher values obtainedfor bulk density and penetration resistance in no-tillage compared to the reduced tillage treatmentsat 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm, there were nosignificant differences between the reduced tillagetreatments (RTD, RTR and RNT). Our resultssuggested that since saturated hydraulicconductivity, penetration resistance, and bulkdensity were adversely affected, no-tillage andreduced tillage should be applied cautiously in a

high clay content soil under a semi-arid climate.

AcknowledgementWe thank the TUBITAK (The Scientific andTechnological Research Council of Turkey) forfinancial support for the project (Grant No:TOVAG 106O023), which allowed this work tobe carried out.

ReferencesAbu-Hamdeh N H (2002). Effect of soil manipulation

and other field parameters on soil physicalproperties 12th ISCO Conference, Beijing

Abu-Hamdeh N H (2003). Soil compaction and rootdistribution for okra as affected by tillage andvehicle parameters. Soil and Tillage Research74(1): 25-35

Alvarez C R, Taboada M A, Gutierrez Boem F H, BonoA, Fernandez P L & Prystupa P (2009). Topsoil

properties as affected by tillage systems in theRolling Pampa Region of Argentina. Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal73(4): 1242-1250

ASAE (1994). Soil cone penetrometers. S313.2 inStandards Engineering Practices Data, ASAE

Standards, St. Joseph, MIAzooz R H & Arshad M A (1996). Soil infiltration and

hydraulic conductivity under long-term no-tillageand conventional tillage systems. Canadian Journalof Soil Science 76(2): 143-152

Benjamin J G (1993). Tillage effects on near-surfacesoil hydraulic properties. Soil and Tillage Research26(4): 277-288

Bhattacharyya R, Prakash V, Kundu S & Gupta H S(2006). Effect of tillage and crop rotations on poresize distribution and soil hydraulic conductivity insandy clay loam soil of the Indian Himalayas. Soiland Tillage Research86(2): 129-140

Blake G R & Hartge K H (1986). Bulk density. In:Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1.Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA-SSA, Madison, WI, pp:363-375

Blevins R L, Thomas G W, Smith M S, Frye W W &Cornelius P L (1983). Changes in soil propertiesafter 10 years non-tilled and conventionally tilledcorn. Soil and Tillage Research3(2): 135-146

Celik I, Ortas I, Barut Z B, Gok M, Saryev A,Demirbas A, Akpinar C & Tulun Y (2009). Effectsof different soil tillage systems on soil quality

parameters and crop yields. Final report of theTUBITAK project (The Scientific andTechnological Research Council of Turkey, Grant

No: 106O023) pp:163 (in Turkish)

Celik I, Gunal H, Budak M & Akpinar C (2010).Effects of long-term organic and mineral fertilizerson bulk density and penetration resistance in semi-arid Mediterranean soil conditions. Geoderma160(2): 236-243


13/14



Chan K Y & Heenan D P (1993). Surface hydraulicproperties of a red earth under continuous croppingwith different management practices. AustralianJournal of Soil Research31(1): 13-24

Chan K Y & Mead J A (1989). Water movement andmacroporosity of an Australian alfisol underdifferent tillage and pasture conditions. Soil andTillage Research14(4): 301-310

Dalal R C (1992). Long-term trends in total nitrogen ofa Vertisol subjected in zero tillage, nitrogenapplication and stubble retention. AustralianJournal of Soil Research30(2): 223-231

Dam R F, Mehdi B B, Burgess M S E, Madramootoo CA, Mehuys G R & Callum I R (2005). Soil bulkdensity and crop yield under eleven consecutive

years of corn with different tillage and residuepractices in a sandy loam soil in central Canada.Soil and Tillage Research84: 41-53

Dao T H. 1996. Tillage system and crop residue effectson surface compaction of a Paleustill. AgronomyJournal88: 141-148

Datiri B C & Lowery B (1991). Effects of conservationtillage on hydraulic properties of a Griswold siltloam soil. Soil and Tillage Research21(3-4): 257-271

Dawidowsky J B & Koolen A J (1987). Changes insoil water suction, conductivity and dry strengthduring deformation of wet undisturbed samples.

Soil and Tillage Research9(2): 169-180Green R T, Ahuja L R & Benjamin J G (2003).

Advances and challenges in predicting agriculturalmanagement effects on soil hydraulic properties.Geoderma116(1-2): 327

Hakansson I & Lipiec J (2000). A review of theusefulness of relative bulk density values in studiesof structure and compaction. Soil and TillageResearch 53(2): 71-85

Heard J R, Kladivko E J & Mannering J V (1988). Soilmacroporosity, hydraulic conductivity and air

permeability of silty soils under long-termconservation tillage in Indiana. Soil and Tillage

Research 11(1): 1-18Horne D J, Ross C W & Hughes K A (1992). 10 years

of a maize oats rotation under three tillage systemson a silt loam in New Zealand. 1. A comparison ofsome soil properties. Soil and Tillage Research22(12): 131-143

Johnson C E & Bailey A C (2002). Soil compaction. Inadvances in soil dynamics, Volume 2, pp.155-178.St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE

Kanwar R S (1989). Effect of tillage system on thevariability of soil water tensions and water content.Trans. ASAE 32(2): 605-610

Karlen D L, Wollenhaupt N C, Erbach D C, Berry EC, Swan J B, Eash N S & Jordahl JL (1994). Cropresidue effects on soil quality following 10 years ofno-till corn. Soil and Tillage Research 31(2-3):149-167

Klute A & Dirksen C (1986). Hydraulic conductivityand diffusivity: In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of SoilAnalysis. Part 1. Physical and MineralogicalMethods, 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA-SSA,Madison, WI, pp: 687-734

Klute A (1982). Tillage effects on the hydraulicproperties of soil: a review. In: Unger, P.W., Van

Doren, Jr., D.M. (Eds.), Predicting Tillage Effectson Soil Physical Properties and Processes, ASASpec. Publ. No. 44. ASA, Madison, WI, pp. 29-44

Kutilek M & Nielsen D R (1994). Soil Hydrology.Catena Verlag, Cremlingen-Destedt, 370 pp. (ISBN3-923381-26-3)

Liebig M A, Tanaka D L & Wienhold B J (2004).Tillage and cropping effects on soil qualityindicators in the northern Great Plains. Soil andTillage Research78(2): 131-141

Mamman E & Ohu J O (1998). The effect of tractortraffic on air permeability and millet production in asandy loam soil in Nigeria. Ife Journal of

Technology 8(1): 1-7McGarry D, Bridge B J & Radford B J (2000).

Contrasting soil physical properties after zero andtraditional tillage of an alluvial soil in the semi-aridsubtropics. Soil and Tillage Research 53(2): 105-115

Meek B D, Rechel E A, Cater L M, DeTar W R & UrieA L (1992). Infiltration rate of a sandy loam soil:effets of traffic, tillage, and plant roots. Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal56: 908-913

Miller J J, Kokko E G & Kozub G C (1998).Comparison of porosity in a chernozemic clay loamsoil under long-term conventional tillage and no-

till. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 78(4): 619-629

Moret D & Arrue J L (2007). Dynamics of soilhydraulic properties during fallow as affected bytillage. Soil and Tillage Research 96(1-2): 103-113

Obi M E & Nnabude P C (1988). The effect of differentmanagement practices on the physical properties ofa sandy loam soil in southern Nigeria. Soil andTillage Research12(1): 81-90


14/14



Osunbitan J A, Oyedele D J & Adekalu K O (2005).Tillage effects on bulk density, hydraulicconductivity and strength of a loamy sand soil insouthwestern Nigeria. Soil and Tillage Research82(1): 57-64

Radford B J & Nielsen R G H (1985). Comparison ofpres wheels, seed soaking and water injection asaids to sorghum and sunflower establishment inQueensland. Australian Journal of ExperimentalAgriculture 25(3): 656-664

Rahman M H, Okubo A, Sugiyama S & Mayland H F(2008). Physical, chemical and microbiological

properties of an Andisol as related to land use andtillage practice. Soil and Tillage Research101: 10-19

Raper R L & Kirby J M (2005). Soil Compaction: Howto do it, Undo it, or Avoid doing it. ASABEDistinguished Lecture Series No. 30, pp:1-14

Roscoe R & Buurman P (2003). Tillage effects on soilorganic matter in density fractions of a CerradoOxisol. Soil and Tillage Research70(2): 107-119

Schwartz R C, Evett S R & Unger P W (2003). Soilhydraulic proper-ties of cropland compared withreestablished and native grassland. Geoderma116(1-2): 47-60

Sharratt B, Zhang M & Sparrow S (2006). Twentyyears of tillage research in subarctic Alaska I.Impact on soil strength, aggregation, roughness, and

residue cover. Soil and Tillage Research 91(1-2):75-81

Sillon J F, Richard G & Cousin I (2003). Tillage andtraffic effects on soil hydraulic properties andevaporation. Geoderma 116(1-2): 29-46

Soil Survey Staff (1999). Soil taxonomy: a basic systemof soil classification for making and interpretingsoil surveys, 2nd edition. Agriculture Handbook,vol:435 pp:326

Tebrgge F & Dring R A (1999). Reducing tillageintensity-a review of results from a long-term studyin Germany. Soil and Tillage Research53: 15-28

Wu L, Swan J B, Paulson W H & Randall G W (1992).

Tillage effects on measured soil hydraulicproperties. Soil and Tillage Research25: 17-33

Xu D & Mermoud A (2001). Topsoil properties asaffected by tillage practices in North China. Soiland Tillage Research60(1): 11-19

Zhang S, Grip H & Lvdahl L (2006). Effect of soilcompaction on hydraulic properties of two loesssoils in China. Soil and Tillage Research 90(1-2):117-125

effects of tillage methods on penetration resistance, bulk density and saturated hydraulic...

Documents