This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 10 October 2014, At: 15:12Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communications in Soil Science and Plant AnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Form and Rate onSoil Bulk Density and Water ContentK. R. Brye a , N. A. Slaton a , R. J. Norman a & M. C. Savin aa Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences , University of Arkansas ,Fayetteville, Arkansas, USAPublished online: 31 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: K. R. Brye , N. A. Slaton , R. J. Norman & M. C. Savin (2005) Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Formand Rate on Soil Bulk Density and Water Content, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 35:15-16, 2311-2325

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/LCSS-200030655

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS

Vol. 35, Nos. 15 & 16, pp. 2311–2325, 2004

Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Form and

Rate on Soil Bulk Density and Water Content

K. R. Brye,* N. A. Slaton, R. J. Norman, and M. C. Savin

Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University

of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

ABSTRACT

Poultry litter is an organic amendment that has been used

successfully as an alternative nutrient source to inorganic, commer-

cial fertilizers. Poultry litter also has the potential to improve other

aspects of soil quality. However, few field studies have been

conducted to ascertain the effects of poultry litter on soil physical

properties. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the short-

term effects of poultry litter form (i.e., fresh vs. pelletized) and rate

on soil bulk density and water content and early-season stand

development in three fine-textured soils of the Mississippi River

Delta region of eastern Arkansas that are commonly cropped to rice

(Oryza sativa L.). Six litter rates were used representing a range of

total nitrogen (N) rates. Soil samples were collected from the 0- to

*Correspondence: K. R. Brye, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental

Sciences, 115 Plant Sciences Bldg., University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR

72701, USA; Fax: 479-575-7465; E-mail: kbrye@uark.edu.

2311

DOI: 10.1081/LCSS-200030655 0010-3624 (Print); 1532-2416 (Online)

Copyright & 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

10-cm depth between four and six weeks after litter application and

incorporation for bulk density and volumetric water content

determination. Leaf area index was measured as an indicator of

early-season stand development. Litter form did not affect soil bulk

density, water content, or leaf area index in two silt loams, and a

silty-clay soil. In contrast, soil bulk density decreased significantly

( p< 0.01) as litter rate increased and leaf area index decreased as

bulk density increased in one silt-loam soil, but was unaffected by

litter rate in the other silt-loam and silty-clay soil. Litter rate

generally did not affect soil volumetric water content, but results

indicate that the effects of litter rate may be manifested more at

relatively low soil water contents. The results of this study

demonstrate that poultry litter has positive short-term effects on

physical properties of fine-textured soils. These results are agrono-

mically significant for many crops in terms of the potential for

creating a less compacted seedbed for seedling emergence, improved

stand development, and ultimately increased crop yields.

Key Words: Organic amendments; Physical properties; Silt loam;

Arkansas; Rice.

INTRODUCTION

Northwest Arkansas, specifically the six county area that comprisesDistrict 1 in Arkansas, is a region with a significant number of poultryproducers. In 2002, Arkansas alone produced roughly 1.2 billion broilerchickens (Gallus gallus), with approximately one-third of the state totalbeing produced in northwest Arkansas.[1] With this magnitude of poultryproduction occurring in a geographically confined area, waste disposal isa critical issue. It is estimated that most broiler production operationsgenerate between 1.1 and 1.5Mg of poultry litter per 1000 birds.[2] Thistranslates into between 1.3 and 1.8 million Mg of poultry litter producedin the state of Arkansas annually and between 0.4 and 0.6 million Mg oflitter concentrated in northwest Arkansas.

Much of the poultry litter generated in northwest Arkansas is landapplied. Land application of poultry litter in northwest Arkansas haselevated soil test phosphorus (P) to excessively high levels in many areas,which consequently has resulted in increased P concentrations and loadsin runoff water.[3] As the environmental ramifications of confined animal-feeding operations are being realized in northwest Arkansas, alternativelitter disposal options are being actively considered.

One alternative that is seriously being evaluated is litter applicationto the row-crop agricultural soils of eastern Arkansas as a nutrient source.

2312 Brye et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

To date, transportation costs have exceeded the inorganic fertilizer valueof poultry litter; thus export of poultry litter from the poultry-producingregion of northwest Arkansas to the row-crop agricultural region ofeastern Arkansas has been greatly limited. However, aside from strict

Figure 1. Effects of litter rate, pooled across litter form, on soil bulk density, and

water content at three locations in eastern Arkansas. Litter rates 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and

5 represent actual dry matter additions of 0, 640, 1280, 2560, 3840, and

5120 kg ha�1 of fresh litter and 0, 740, 1481, 2960, 4441, and 5920 kg ha�1 of

pelletized litter, respectively. Mean values (n¼ 8) are plotted with standard error

bars. Bars with similar letters are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Form and Rate 2313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

fertilizer value, poultry litter application to soil as an organic amendmenthas numerous potential benefits and has been advocated for agronomicuse in eastern Arkansas for nearly forty years.[4]

The effects of poultry litter additions on crop yields and soil chemicalproperties have been most frequently documented. Poultry litter wasfound to increase yields of cotton in Alabama and Arkansas and soybeanand rice in Arkansas compared to commercial inorganic fertilizers on soildegraded by land forming and/or erosion.[5–7] In a 13-wk greenhouseincubation of litter amended loamy sand, Warren and Fonteno[8] showedthat cation exchange capacity, available P, and exchangeable potassium(K), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) increased linearly as compostedlitter rate increased. Tyson and Cabrera[9] investigated the N-mineraliza-tion potential of composted and uncomposted poultry litter in loamy-sand and sandy-loam soils and determined that N release fromcomposted litter occurred more slowly than from uncomposted poultrylitter. In addition, agricultural soils amended with poultry litter have beenshown to have increased pH, total and nitrate-N, organic matter, andextractable soil P, K, Ca, Mg, copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn) compared tounamended soils.[10–13] Besides affecting crop yields and selected soilchemical properties, poultry litter additions can also improve soilphysical properties.

In theory, organic soil amendments, including poultry litter, wouldreduce soil bulk density and increase soil water-holding capacity,hydraulic conductivity, and size and proportion of water-stableaggregates.[8] However, the effects of organic amendments on soilphysical properties are likely to be texture dependent.[14]

Coarse-textured soils have inherently low water- and nutrient-holding capacities. Therefore, organic amendments are often recom-mended to enhance the water- and nutrient-holding capacity of sandysoils. In the greenhouse study previously described, Warren andFonteno[8] also observed increased soil water content and water-holdingcapacity, as well as decreased bulk density, with increasing compostedlitter application rates to a loamy sand. Similar to the effects of poultrylitter, other organic soil amendments, such as composted sewage sludge,also significantly reduced soil bulk density and increased soil watercontent in a sandy soil compared to unamended controls.[15]

Compared to coarse-textured soils, fine-textured soils typically haveinherently higher water- and nutrient holding capacities; thus thelikelihood of significant response of these parameters to organic soilamendments is somewhat decreased. Sommerfeldt and Chang[16]

observed that soil surface bulk density decreased with increasing ratesof cattle feedlot manure in a clay-loam soil.

2314 Brye et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

The fine-textured, alluvial soils of eastern Arkansas have relativelylow levels of organic matter, but remain highly productive due to the useof large amounts of inorganic fertilizers, although they are prone tosurface sealing and crusting upon wetting and drying. Under theseconditions, organic amendments, such as poultry litter, could havesignificant short- and long-term positive effects on soil physical proper-ties. Most importantly, poultry litter additions may help alleviate thetendency for eastern Arkansas soils to be compacted, seal, and crust,which can greatly inhibit seedling emergence,[17] early stand development,and ultimately result in significant yield loss.[17,18]

The objectives of this study were to evaluate (i) short-term effects ofpoultry litter form (i.e., fresh vs. pelletized) and rate on soil bulk densityand water content, and (ii) the relationship between leaf area index, as anindicator of early-season stand development, and soil bulk density inthree fine-textured soils of the Mississippi River Delta region of easternArkansas that are commonly cropped to rice (Oryza sativa L.). Wehypothesized that both litter form and, at least, high litter applicationrates would significantly reduce soil bulk density and increase soil watercontent relative to an unamended control prior to establishing thepermanent flood in the rice cropping system. It was also hypothesizedthat leaf area index and soil bulk density are inversely related, such thatas bulk density increases (i.e., becomes more compacted) leaf area indexdecreases indicating poorer early-season stand development.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Site Descriptions

This study was conducted in 2003 at three University of Arkansasagricultural experiment stations, the Rice Research and Extension Center(RREC), Stuttgart, AR (N34�270 5300, W91�250 400), the Pine Tree BrachStation (PTBS), Colt, AR (N35�70 1600, W90�570 2600), and the NortheastResearch and Extension Center (NEREC), Keiser, AR (N35�390 5200,W90�40 5700), in the Mississippi River Delta region of eastern Arkansas.The three sites represent typical eastern Arkansas soils used for riceproduction. At RREC, the soil is a DeWitt silt loam (fine, montmor-illonitic, thermic Typic Albaqualf).[19] At PTBS, the soil is a Calhoun siltloam (fine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Glossaqualf).[20] AtNEREC, the soil is a Sharkey silty clay (very fine, smectitic, thermicChromic Epiaquert).[21,22] All three sites reside on alluvial parentmaterials with<1% slope.

Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Form and Rate 2315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

Treatments and Experimental Design

The study consisted of two forms of broiler chicken litter, fresh and

pelletized (Plant Right, Inc., Purdy, MO), applied at six rates equivalent

to 0, 34, 67, 134, 202, and 269 kg ha�1 of total N contained in each litter

form. The fresh poultry litter was obtained from a commercial broiler

production unit located at the University of Arkansas Experiment

Station, Savoy, AR, and consisted of uncomposted, clean-out material,

including rice hulls and sawdust as bedding, after 18 months of broiler

production. Table 1 summarizes selected properties of the fresh and

pelletized litter at the time of application. The final soil amendment rates

applied on a dry-weight basis were 0, 640, 1280, 2560, 3840, and

5120 kg ha�1 of fresh poultry litter and 0, 740, 1481, 2960, 4441, and

5920 kg ha�1 of pelletized poultry litter. Treatments were established on

15, 17, and 30 April 2003 at RREC, PTBS, and NEREC, respectively.

Plots were 2m wide by 4.9m long. The entire study area at each of the

three locations was < 0.1 ha.

Table 1. Selected litter properties at the time of application. Mean values (n¼ 2)

are reported (� standard error).

Litter form

Property Fresh Pelletized

Moisture content (g g�1) 0.21 (<0.01) 0.11 (< 0.01)

pH 8.45 (0.05) 6.4 (0.1)

Electrical conductivity (dSm�1) 7.95 (0.65) 11.2 (3)

Total C (%)a 39.5 (0.1) 37.3 (0.3)

Total N (%) 5.26 (0.01) 4.55 (0.01)

Total P (%) 1.55 (0.04) 1.55 (0.09)

Total K (%) 2.86 (0.04) 2.77 (0.19)

Total Ca (%) 3.19 (0.38) 2.61 (0.18)

Total Mg (%) 0.58 (0.01) 0.59 (0.03)

Total S (%) 0.61 (0.02) 0.69 (0.02)

Total Fe (mgkg�1) 197 (24) 231 (59)

Total Mn (mgkg�1) 421 (15) 503 (15)

Total Zn (mgkg�1) 395 (13) 462 (20)

Total Cu (mgkg�1) 298 (28) 575 (18)

NHþ4 –N (mgkg�1) 2877 (28) 7310 (516)

NO�3 �N (mgkg�1) 37.5 (4.5) 268 (17)

aAll nutrient concentrations are expressed on a dry-weight basis.

2316 Brye et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

Following manual surface application, all litter treatments wereincorporated within a few hours. A rototiller was used to incorporatelitter to a depth of approximately 7.5 cm at RREC and 5 cm at NEREC.A field cultivator was used to incorporate litter to a depth ofapproximately 5 cm at PTBS. The soil surface of the unamended controlplots (i.e., 0 kg ha�1 rate) was also manipulated in the same fashion as theplots that received litter at each location. Wells rice was drill seeded at110 kg seed ha�1 immediately following litter incorporation.

The experimental design was a randomized complete block with fourreplications. Treatments were arranged in a 2 (litter source)� 6 (litterrate) factorial structure for a total of 48 plots per location.

Sampling Scheme and Analyses

Prior to litter application, the entire study area at each location wasdivided into eight sections. Soil samples were collected from the 0 to10 cm depth of each of the eight sections to characterize initial soil pH,electrical conductivity (EC), and total N and carbon (C) within eachstudy area (Table 2). The samples were oven dried at 70�C for 48 h,crushed, and sieved to pass through a 2mm mesh screen. Soil pH and ECwere determined potentiometrically on a 1:2 soil:water paste. Total N andC were determined by high-temperature combustion using a LECO CN-2000 analyzer (LECO Corp., St. Joseph, MI).

Soil samples were collected between four and six weeks followinglitter application, 27 May at RREC and PTBS and 28 May at NEREC.One 4.8 cm diameter soil core, in which the sampling chamber wasbeveled to the outside to minimize compaction upon sampling, wascollected from the 0 to 10 cm depth at roughly the same location ineach plot. Soil cores were weighed, oven dried at 70�C for 48 h, andre-weighed. Pre- and post-drying masses were used to calculate

Table 2. Pretreatment summary of selected soil chemical properties. Mean

values (n¼ 8; � standard error) are reported.

Location pH

EC

(dSm�1)

Total N

(%)

Total C

(%)

RREC (silt loam) 6.6 (0.05) 0.14 (0.05) 0.10 (< 0.01) 1.06 (0.03)

PTBS (silt loam) 6.9 (0.06) 0.18 (0.03) 0.11 (0.01) 1.20 (0.03)

NEREC (silty clay) 7.3 (0.06) 0.30 (0.08) 0.16 (< 0.01) 1.60 (0.01)

Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Form and Rate 2317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

gravimetric soil water content and bulk density for each plot. Volumetricsoil water content was determined by multiplying the measuredgravimetric water content by the measured bulk density from eachplot. In addition, daily rainfall records were obtained for the periodbetween litter application and soil sampling from measurementsconducted at each experiment station.

Leaf Area Index

Leaf area index was measured nondestructively on rice seedlingsusing a LI-COR LAI-2000 plant canopy analyzer (LI-COR, Inc.,Lincoln, NE) immediately following bulk density sampling at all threelocations. One measurement was conducted during uniformly overcastsky conditions approximately 1m into the middle row of each 9-row plot.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted todetermine the effect of litter form and rate on soil bulk density,volumetric water content, and leaf area index using SAS Version 8.1(SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Treatment means were separated byFisher’s least significant difference at the 0.05 level. Based on significantANOVA results, linear regression was used to ascertain the predictiverelationship between bulk density and litter rate pooled across litter formusing Minitab Version 13.31 (Minitab Inc., State College, PA). Two-sample t-tests were also conducted to determine whether soil bulkdensity, volumetric water content, and leaf area index for the two litterforms pooled across rate differed significantly from the unamendedcontrol (Minitab). In addition, linear regression analyses were conductedto ascertain the relationship between leaf area index and soil bulk density(Minitab). Statistical analyses were conducted separately for eachlocation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Soil Bulk Density

Poultry litter form (i.e., fresh vs. pelletized) did not significantly( p> 0.05) affect soil bulk density in the top 10 cm at any of the three

2318 Brye et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

study locations (Table 3). Similarly, mean bulk density, pooled acrosslitter rates, for both fresh and pelletized litter forms did not differsignificantly ( p> 0.05) from the unamended control at PTBS (silt loam)and NEREC (silty clay) (Table 3). However, fresh and pelletized littertreatments, pooled across litter rate, averaged 1.30 [standarderror�<0.01] g cm�3 and were significantly smaller than that for theunamended control, which averaged 1.34 (0.01) g cm�3, at RREC (siltloam).

In contrast to poultry litter form, poultry litter rate significantly( p¼ 0.006) affected soil bulk density, but only at RREC (silt loam)(Fig. 1). Soil bulk density decreased linearly (r2¼ 0.57; p¼ 0.007) atRREC as litter rate increased (Fig. 2) with soil bulk density in the secondlowest and highest litter rates significantly smaller than that in the lowestlitter rate and unamended control (Fig. 1). There was no overall effectof litter rate on soil bulk density at PTBS (silt loam) and NEREC(silty clay).

The variable effects of litter rate on soil bulk density between the twosilt-loam sites (i.e., RREC and PTBS) is most likely due to differences inlitter incorporation. At RREC, a rototiller was used to incorporate the

Table 3. Summary of t-test results for bulk density and water content by litter

form compared to the unamended control. Mean values (� standard error) are

reported.

Location/Litter form n

Bulk densitya Water contenta

(g cm�3) (cm3 cm�3)

RREC

Control 8 1.34 (0.01)a 0.15 (0.01)a

Fresh 20 1.30 (0.01)b 0.15 (0.01)a

Pelletized 20 1.30 (0.01)b 0.14 (0.01)a

PTBS

Control 8 1.34 (0.01)a 0.21 (0.01)a

Fresh 20 1.32 (0.01)a 0.21 (<0.01)a

Pelletized 20 1.32 (0.01)a 0.22 (<0.01)a

NEREC

Control 8 0.88 (0.03)a 0.21 (0.01)a

Fresh 20 0.89 (0.02)a 0.23 (0.01)a

Pelletized 20 0.88 (0.02)a 0.22 (0.01)a

aDifferent letters next to mean values within the same column represent

significant differences at the 0.05 level.

Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Form and Rate 2319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

litter to a depth of approximately 7.5 cm. In contrast, a field cultivatorwas used at PTBS, which was only able to incorporate the litter to adepth of approximately 5 cm. If the depth of incorporation had beenslightly deeper at PTBS, the resulting bulk density from at least the higherlitter rates would likely have been somewhat lower than the measuredresults reported here.

These results are in agreement with the observation of MacRae andMehuys[14] that the short-term effects of at least low rates of organicamendments, specifically poultry litter, on soil physical properties,namely soil bulk density, are soil-texture dependent. More importantly,these results indicate that high rates (i.e.,>4000 kg ha�1 dry-weight basis)of poultry litter incorporated to a relatively shallow depth can

Figure 2. Relationship between soil bulk density (BD) and litter dry mass (DM)

incorporated in a silt-loam soil to a depth of 7.5 cm at RREC. The regression

equation is as follows: BD¼ 1.32� 7.7� 10�6�DM(r2¼ 0.57, p¼ 0.007).

2320 Brye et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

significantly reduce bulk density and potential compaction problems infine-textured soils within four to six weeks after incorporation.

Soil Water Content

Neither litter form nor rate significantly affected the soil watercontent in the top 10 cm at any of the three study locations between fourand six weeks after shallow incorporation. Pooled across litter rate, meanvolumetric water content for either litter form did not differ from that ofthe unamended control at any of the three locations (Table 3). Pooledacross litter form, the volumetric water content for the two lowest litterapplication rates was significantly higher than that for the highest litterrate at RREC (silt loam) (Fig. 1). The results from RREC indicate that,despite significantly decreasing soil bulk density, high rates of poultrylitter, whether fresh or pelletized, may stimulate evaporative moistureloss due to increased total porosity of the surface soil. There were nosignificant differences in water content among pooled litter rates at eitherPTBS (silt loam) or NEREC (silty clay).

The amount of rainfall received at each study location may havecontributed to litter effects on soil water content. Within the timebetween litter incorporation and soil sampling (i.e., 4 weeks at NERECand 6 weeks at RREC and PTBS), all three sites received significantamounts of rainfall, 18.1, 21.5, and 28.9 cm at RREC, PTBS, andNEREC, respectively. Within the 10 d prior to soil sampling, RREC (siltloam) received 3.2 cm, NEREC (silty clay) received 4.4 cm, while PTBS(silt loam) received<1.5 cm of rainfall. Despite greater rainfall within10 d before sampling at RREC, the mean water content for all treatmentscombinations at RREC was 15% compared to>20% at both PTBS andNEREC.

The results of this study indicate that the effects of poultry litteradditions on water holding capacity are manifested more at lower thanhigher water contents. These results are also contrary to the results ofWarren and Fonteno[8] and Tester[15] who both observed increasingwater contents with increasing organic amendment application rates.However, Warren and Fonteno[8] conducted a greenhouse pot study, andTester[15] used composted sewage sludge. Also both of these studies wereconducted in sandy soils with organic amendment rates that were muchhigher than those used in this field study. More numerous significantdifferences may have resulted in this study if litter rates similar to Warrenand Fonteno[8] and Tester[15] were used, but the high rates would be both

Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Form and Rate 2321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

environmentally and agronomically impractical for the alluvial soils ofeastern Arkansas.

Early-Season Stand Development

Early-season stand development, as indicated by leaf area index, wasgenerally unaffected by litter form or rate ( p> 0.05), except at RREC(silt loam). At RREC, leaf area index was significantly higher for thethird and fourth highest litter rates ( p¼ 0.0163), 0.46m2m�2 averagedacross litter form, than the unamended control, 0.26m2m�2. Averagedacross litter rate, leaf area index for both litter forms was significantlyhigher ( p< 0.007) than the unamended control at RREC, but not forPTBS or NEREC.

Crop response to poultry litter form and rate is confoundedsomewhat by essential plant nutrients supplied by the litter (Table 1).If differences in leaf area index at RREC were due to a N response ratherthan improved soil physical properties, then leaf area index should havebeen greatest with the highest rate of poultry litter, which also deliveredthe highest N rate. However, this was not observed at any of the threelocations. Therefore, observed differences in leaf area index, hence early-season stand development, are likely more related to litter effects on soilphysical properties than to plant nutrients supplied by the litter. Thiscontention is supported by a significant decrease ( p¼ 0.046) in leaf areaindex as bulk density increased at RREC (Fig. 3).

The results of this study are particularly significant for the fine-textured, alluvial soils of eastern Arkansas. The short-term effect ofreduced bulk density appears to improve stand development by creating anear-surface soil environment with less resistance for seedling emergence,which may contribute to improved yields for all major agronomic cropsgrown in eastern Arkansas including rice, soybean (Glycine max L.),wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), corn(Zea mays L.), and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.).

CONCLUSIONS

Poultry litter form (i.e., fresh vs. pelletized) did not affect soil bulkdensity or volumetric water content in the top 10 cm between four and sixweeks after incorporation in two silt-loam and one silty-clay soilcommonly cropped to rice in the Mississippi River Delta region of

2322 Brye et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

eastern Arkansas. However, high litter rates, regardless of form,significantly reduced soil bulk density compared to an unamendedcontrol and lower litter rates in one silt-loam soil. In general, soil watercontent was also unaffected by litter rate, but results indicate that litterrate may have a greater effect in soil when the moisture content isrelatively low. Leaf area index decreased as bulk density increasedindicating that poultry litter, regardless of form, positively affectsnear-surface soil physical properties for improved early-season standdevelopment. Long-term field studies are necessary to evaluate the effectsof repeated annual litter additions on soil physical properties and water-holding capacity of fine-textured soils.

Figure 3. Relationship between leaf area index (LAI) and soil bulk density (BD)

at RREC. The regression equation is as follows: LAI¼ 1.87� 1.14�BD

(r2¼ 0.08, p¼ 0.046).

Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Form and Rate 2323

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this project was provided jointly by Tyson Foods andthe Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board. We would also like tothank Russ DeLong and Joni Ross for their assistance in plotestablishment and soil sample collection at the three study locations.

REFERENCES

1. Arkansas Agricultural Statistics Service. Commercial broilers:number, production, price, and value [Online]. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/ar/lvskbrol.PDF (verified 14 June 2003).

2. University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, CooperativeExtension Service. Improving poultry litter management and carcassdisposal [Online]. Available at http://www.arnatural.org/eqip4/fact8.asp (verified 12 June 2003).

3. Edwards, D.R.; Daniel, T.C. Effects of poultry litter application rateand rainfall intensity on quality of runoff from fescuegrass plots.J. Environ. Qual. 1993, 22, 362–365.

4. Hileman, L. Broiler litter as fertilizer. Ark. Farm Res. 1965, 24, 6.5. Miller, D.M. Use of poultry litter as a soil amendment in southern

row crop agriculture: a feasibility study based on agronomic,environmental, and economic factors. Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education (SARE) or Agriculture in Concert with theEnvironment (ACE) Research Projects; US Imprint: Griffin, GA,1992; 116.

6. Miller, D.M.; Wells, B.R.; Norman, R.J.; Alvisyahrin, T.Fertilization of rice on leveled soils. In Arkansas Soil FertilityStudies 1989; Sabbe, W.E., Ed.; Univ. Ark., Div Agric., Ark. Agric.Exp. Sta.: Fayetteville, AR, 1990; Res. Ser. 398, 45–48.

7. Miller, D.M.; Wells, B.R.; Norman, R.J. Fertilization of rice ongraded soils using organic materials. In Arkansas Soil Fertility Studies1990; Sabbe, W.E., Ed.; Univ. Ark., Div Agric., Ark. Agric. Exp.Sta.: Fayetteville, AR, 1991; Res. Ser. 411, 55–57.

8. Warren, S.L.; Fonteno, W.C. Changes in physical and chemicalproperties of a loamy sand soil when amended with compostedpoultry litter. J. Environ. Hort. 1993, 11, 186–190.

9. Tyson, S.C.; Cabrera, M.L. Nitrogen mineralization in soils amendedwith composted and uncomposted poultry litter. Commun. Soil Sci.Plant Anal. 1993, 24, 2361–2374.

2324 Brye et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ORDER REPRINTS

10. Kingery, W.L.; Wood, C.W.; Delaney, D.P.; Williams, J.C.;

Mullins, G.L.; van Santen, E. Implications of long-term land

application of poultry litter on tall fescue pastures. J. Prod. Agric.

1993, 6, 390–395.11. Shuman, L.M.; McCracken, D.V. Tillage, lime, and poultry litter

effects on soil zinc, manganese, and copper. Commun. Soil Sci.

Plant Anal. 1999, 30, 1267–1277.12. Nyakatawa, E.Z.; Reddy, K.C.; Sistani, K.R. Tillage, cover

cropping, and poultry litter effects on selected soil chemical

properties. Soil Till. Res. 2001, 58, 69–79.13. Sommerfeldt, T.G.; Chang, C.; Entz, T. Long-term annual manure

applications increase soil organic matter and nitrogen, and decrease

carbon to nitrogen ratio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988, 52, 1668–1672.14. MacRae, R.J.; Mehuys, G.R. Effects of green manuring on the

physical properties of temperate-area soils. In Advances in Soil

Science; Stewart, B.A., Ed.; Springer-Verlag: New York, 1985;

Vol. 3, 71–94.15. Tester, C.F. Organic amendment effects on physical and chemical

properties of a sandy soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1990, 54, 817–831.16. Sommerfeldt, T.G.; Chang, C. Changes in soil properties under

annual applications of feedlot manure and different tillage practices.

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1985, 49, 983–987.17. Radford, B.J.; Yule, D.F.; McGarry, D.; Playford, C. Crop

responses to applied soil compaction and to compaction repair

treatments. Soil Till. Res. 2001, 61, 157–166.18. Johnson, J.F.; Voorhees, W.B.; Nelson, W.W.; Randall, G.W.

Soybean growth and yield as affected by surface and subsoil

compaction. Agron. J. 1990, 82, 973–979.19. Maxwell, G.R.; Binkley, D.G.; West, D.G. Soil Survey of Arkansas

County, Arkansas; United States Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service: Washington, DC, 1972; 74.20. Gray, J.L.; Catlett, V.R. Soil Survey of St. Francis County,

Arkansas; United States Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service: Washington, DC, 1966; 81.21. Ferguson, D.V.; Gray, J.L. Soil Survey of Mississippi County,

Arkansas; United States Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service: Washington, DC, 1971; 58.22. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Soil Survey Division. Soil series by name

search [Online]. Available at http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/

osd/osdnamequery.cgi (verified 11 June 2003).

Short-term Effects of Poultry Litter Form and Rate 2325

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Request Permission/Order Reprints

Reprints of this article can also be ordered at

http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081CSS200030655

Request Permission or Order Reprints Instantly!

Interested in copying and sharing this article? In most cases, U.S. Copyright Law requires that you get permission from the article’s rightsholder before using copyrighted content.

All information and materials found in this article, including but not limited to text, trademarks, patents, logos, graphics and images (the "Materials"), are the copyrighted works and other forms of intellectual property of Marcel Dekker, Inc., or its licensors. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.

Get permission to lawfully reproduce and distribute the Materials or order reprints quickly and painlessly. Simply click on the "Request Permission/ Order Reprints" link below and follow the instructions. Visit the U.S. Copyright Office for information on Fair Use limitations of U.S. copyright law. Please refer to The Association of American Publishers’ (AAP) website for guidelines on Fair Use in the Classroom.

The Materials are for your personal use only and cannot be reformatted, reposted, resold or distributed by electronic means or otherwise without permission from Marcel Dekker, Inc. Marcel Dekker, Inc. grants you the limited right to display the Materials only on your personal computer or personal wireless device, and to copy and download single copies of such Materials provided that any copyright, trademark or other notice appearing on such Materials is also retained by, displayed, copied or downloaded as part of the Materials and is not removed or obscured, and provided you do not edit, modify, alter or enhance the Materials. Please refer to our Website User Agreement for more details.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

5:12

10

Oct

ober

201

4