Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T20:51:49.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cropping system influences on soil physical properties in the Great Plains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

J.L. Pikul Jr ,
R.C. Schwartz ,
J.G. Benjamin ,
R.L. Baumhardt  and
S. Merrill
J.L. Pikul Jr*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 2923 Medary Ave., Brookings, SD, 57006, USA.
R.C. Schwartz
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, PO Drawer 10, Bushland, TX, 79012, USA.
J.G. Benjamin
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 40335, County Road GG, Akron, CO, 80720, USA.
R.L. Baumhardt
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, PO Drawer 10, Bushland, TX, 79012, USA.
S. Merrill
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, PO Box 459, Mandan, ND, 58554-0459, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: Email: jpikul@ngirl.ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agricultural systems produce both detrimental and beneficial effects on soil quality (SQ). We compared soil physical properties of long-term conventional (CON) and alternative (ALT) cropping systems near Akron, Colorado (CO); Brookings, South Dakota (SD); Bushland, Texas (TX); Fargo, North Dakota (ND); Mandan (ND); Mead, Nebraska (NE); Sidney, Montana (MT); and Swift Current, Saskatchewan (SK), Canada. Objectives were to quantify the changes in soil physical attributes in cropping systems and assess the potential of individual soil attributes as sensitive indicators of change in SQ. Soil samples were collected three times per year from each treatment at each site for one rotation cycle (4 years at Brookings and Mead). Water infiltration rates were measured. Soil bulk density (BD) and gravimetric water were measured at 0–7.5, 7.5–15, and 15–30 cm depth increments and water-filled pore space ratio (WFPS) was calculated. At six locations, a rotary sieve was used to separate soil (top 5 cm) into six aggregate size groups and calculate mean weight diameter (MWD) of dry aggregates. Under the CON system at Brookings, dry aggregates (>19 mm) abraded into the smallest size class (<0.4 mm) on sieving. In contrast, the large aggregates from the ALT system abraded into size classes between 2 and 6 mm. Dry aggregate size distribution (DASD) shows promise as an indicator of SQ related to susceptibility of soil to wind erosion. Aggregates from CON were least stable in water. Soil C was greater under ALT than CON for both Brookings and Mead. At other locations, MWD of aggregates under continuous crop or no tillage (ALT systems) was greater than MWD under CON. There was no crop system effect on water infiltration rates for locations having the same tillage within cropping system. Tillage resulted in increased, decreased, or unchanged near-surface BD. Because there was significant temporal variation in water infiltration, MWD, and BD, conclusions based on a single point-in-time observation should be avoided. Elevated WFPS at Fargo, Brookings, and Mead may have resulted in anaerobic soil conditions during a portion of the year. Repeated measurements of WFPS or DASD revealed important temporal characteristics of SQ that could be used to judge soil condition as affected by management.

Keywords

soil bulk densitydry aggregate stabilityrotary sieveaggregate size distributionwater infiltration ratewater filled pore spacesoil organic carbon
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 15 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

01Campbell, C.A. and Souster, W. 1982. Loss of organic matter and potentially mineralizable nitrogen from Saskatchewan soils due to cropping. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 62: 651–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
02Monreal, C.M. and Janzen, H.H. 1993. Soil organic-carbon dynamics after 80 years of cropping a Dark Brown Chernozem. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 73: 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
03Rasmussen, P.E. and Parton, W.J. 1994. Long-term effects of residue management in wheat-fallow: I. Inputs, yield, and soil organic matter. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58: 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
04Biederbeck, V.O., Campbell, C.A., and Zentner, R.P. 1984. Effect of crop rotation and fertilization on some biological properties of a loam in southwestern Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 64: 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
05Boyle, M., Frankenberger, W.T. Jr, and Stolzy, L.H. 1989. The influence of organic matter on soil aggregation and water infiltration. Journal of Production Agriculture 2: 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
06Hudson, B.D. 1994. Soil organic matter and available water capacity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49: 189–194.Google Scholar
07Bauer, A. and Black, A.L. 1992. Organic carbon concentration effects on available water capacity of three soil textural groups. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56: 248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
08Soane, B.D. 1990. The role of organic matter in soil compactibility: a review of some practical aspects. Soil and Tillage Research 16: 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
09Doran, J.W., Elliott, E.T., and Paustian, K. 1998. Soil microbial activity, nitrogen cycling, and long-term changes in organic carbon pools as related to fallow tillage management. Soil and Tillage Research 49: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Degens, B.P. 1997. Macro-aggregation of soils by biological bonding and binding mechanisms and the factors affecting these: a review. Australian Journal of Soil Research 35: 431–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Mbagwu, J.S.C. and Bazzoffi, P. 1989. Properties of soil aggregates as influenced by tillage practices. Soil Use and Management 5: 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Bruce, R.R., Langdale, G.W., West, L.T., and Miller, W.P. 1992. Soil surface modification by biomass inputs affecting rainfall infiltration. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56: 1614–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Pikul, J.L. Jr, Ramig, R.E., and Wilkins, D.E. 1993. Soil properties and crop yield among four tillage systems in a wheat–pea rotation. Soil and Tillage Research 26: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Pikul, J.L. Jr, and Zuzel, J.F. 1994. Soil crusting and water infiltration affected by long-term tillage and residue management. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58: 1524–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Mulla, D.J., Huyck, L.M., and Reganold, J.P. 1992. Temporal variation in aggregate stability on conventional and alternative farms. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56: 1620–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Jones, O.R., Hauser, V.L., and Popham, T.W. 1994. No-tillage effects on infiltration, runoff, and water conservation on dryland. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 37: 473–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Pikul, J.L. Jr, and Aase, J.K. 2003. Water infiltration and storage affected by subsoiling and subsequent tillage. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67: 859–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Seta, A.K., Blevins, R.L., Frye, W.W., and Barfield, B.J. 1993. Reducing soil erosion and agricultural chemical losses with conservation tillage. Journal of Environmental Quality 22: 661–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Edwards, W.M., Triplett, G.B., Van Doren, D.M., Owens, L.B., Redmond, C.E., and Dick, W.A. 1993. Tillage studies with a corn–soybean rotation: Hydrology and sediment loss. Soil Science Society of America Journal 57: 1051–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Ehlers, W. 1975. Observations on earthworm channels and infiltration on tilled and untilled loess soil. Soil Science 119: 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Rhoton, F.E., Bruce, R.R., Buehring, N.W., Elkins, G.B., Langdale, C.W., and Tyler, D.D. 1993. Chemical and physical characteristics of four soil types under conventional and no-tillage systems. Soil and Tillage Research 28: 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Vyn, T.J. and Raimbault, B.A. 1993. Long-term effect of five tillage systems on corn response and soil structure. Agronomy Journal 85: 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Bruce, R.R., Langdale, G.W., and Dillard, A.L. 1990. Tillage and crop rotation effect on characteristics of a sandy surface soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 54: 1744–1747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Blevins, R.L., Smith, M.S., Thomas, G.W., and Frye, W.W. 1983. Influence of conservation tillage on soil properties. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38: 301–305.Google Scholar
25Chang, C. and Lindwall, C.W. 1990. Comparison of the effect of long-term tillage and crop rotation on physical properties of a soil. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 32: 53–55.Google Scholar
26Mielke, L.N., Wilhelm, W.W., Richards, K.A., and Fenster, C.R. 1984. Soil physical characteristics of reduced tillage in a wheat–fallow system. Transaction of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 27: 1724–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Allmaras, R.R., Pikul, J.L. Jr, Kraft, J.M., and Wilkins, D.E. 1988. A method for measuring incorporated crop residue and associated soil properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal 52: 1128–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Pikul, J.L. Jr, and Allmaras, R.R. 1986. Physical and chemical properties of a Haploxeroll after fifty years of residue management. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50: 214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Varvel, G., Reidell, W., Deibert, E., McConkey, B., Tanaka, D., Vigil, M., and Schwartz, R. 2006. Great Plains cropping system studies for soil quality assessment. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Gardner, W.H. 1986. Water content. In Klute, A. (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI p. 493–544.Google Scholar
31Blake, G.R. and Hartge, K.H. 1986. Bulk density. In Klute, A. (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, p. 363–375.Google Scholar
32Hillel, D. 1971. Soil and Water Physical Principles and Processes. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
33Chepil, W.S. 1962. A compact rotary sieve and the importance of dry sieving in physical soil analysis. Soil Science Society of American Proceedings 26: 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Kemper, W.D. and Rosenau, R.C. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In Klute, A. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agronomy Monograph No. 9, 2nd ed American Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 425–444.Google Scholar
35Chepil, W.S. 1951. Properties of soil which influence wind erosion: IV. State of dry aggregate structure. Soil Science 72: 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Lowery, B., Hickey, W.J., Arshad, M.A., and Lal, R. 1996. Soil water parameters and soil quality Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. In Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J. (eds). Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication no. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, 143–155.Google Scholar
37Littell, R.C., Milliken, G.A., Stroup, W.W., and Wolfinger, R.D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
38Jones, C.A. 1983. Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities for root growth. Soil Science Society of America Journal 47: 1208–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Parkin, T.B., Doran, J.W., and Franco-Vizcaino, E. 1996. Field and laboratory tests of soil respiration. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds). Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication, no. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, p. 231–245.Google Scholar
40Doran, J.W., Mielke, L.N., and Power, J.F. 1990. Microbial activity as regulated by soil water-filled pore space. In Transactions of the 14th International Congress of Soil Science, Kyoto, Japan, 12–18 August. International Society of Soil Science, Wageningen, The Netherlands. p. 94–100.Google Scholar
41Liebig, M., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Johnson, J.M.F., Wright, S., and Barbour, N. 2006. Cropping system effects on soil biological characteristics in the Great Plains. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21: 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42Wright, S.F. and Upadhyaya, A. 1998. A survey of soils for aggregate stability and glomalin, a glycoprotein produced by hyphae of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Plant and Soil 198: 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Bisal, F. and Ferguson, W.S. 1968. Monthly and yearly changes in aggregate size of surface soils. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 48: 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Merrill, S.D., Black, A.L., Fryrear, D.W., Saleh, A., Zobeck, T.M., Halvorson, A.D., and Tanaka, D.L. 1999. Soil wind erosion hazard of spring wheat–fallow as affected by long-term climate and tillage. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63: 1768–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Arshad, M.A., Lowery, B., and Grossman, B. 1996. Physical tests for monitoring soil quality. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds). Soil Science Society of America Special Publication, no. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, p. 123–142.Google Scholar