Elsevier

Soil and Tillage Research

Volume 175, January 2018, Pages 205-216
Soil and Tillage Research

Computed tomography and soil physical measurements of compaction behaviour under strip tillage, mulch tillage and no tillage

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.09.007Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Strip tillage created two locally different soil structures.

  • Strip tillage led to both high bulk density and saturated conductivity between seed rows.

  • Macroporosity and pore connectivity were higher in tilled than in untilled treatments.

  • Under strip tillage, precompression stress was higher between than within seed rows.

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increased application of conservation-oriented tillage techniques, where instead of being turned the soil is only loosened or not tilled at all. Strip tillage, a special form of conservation tillage, results in small-scale structural differences, since tillage is performed only within the seed row, while the soil between seed rows is not tilled. However, tillage always impacts upon physical soil properties and processes.

A combined application of conventional soil mechanical methods and X-ray computed tomography (X-ray CT) is employed here in order to investigate small-scale structural differences in a chernozem (texture 0–30  cm: silt loam) located in central Germany under strip tillage (within and between seed rows) compared to no tillage and mulch tillage. Apart from recording changes over time (years: 2012, 2014, 2015) to dry bulk density and saturated conductivity at soil depths 2–8 and 12–18 cm, stress-strain tests were conducted to map mechanical behaviour for a load range of 5–550 kPa at a soil depth of 12–18 cm (year 2015). Mechanical precompression stress was determined from the stress-dry bulk density curves. In addition, computed tomography scans were created followed by quantitative image analysis of the morphometric parameters mean macropore diameter, macroporosity, connectivity and anisotropy of the same soil samples.

For strip tillage between seed rows and no tillage, a significant increase in dry bulk density was observed over time compared to strip tillage within the seed row and mulch tillage. This was more pronounced at a soil depth of 2–8 cm than at 12–18 cm. Despite higher dry bulk density, strip tillage between the seed row displayed also an increasing saturated conductivity compared to strip tillage within the seed row and mulch tillage. The computed tomography scans showed that the macropores became more compressed and soil aggregates were pushed together as mechanical stress increased, with the aggregate arrangement being transformed down into a coherent soil mass. The soil mechanical and morphometric parameters supported each other in terms of what they revealed about the mechanical properties of the soil structures. For instance, in the strip tillage between seed rows and no tillage treatments, the lack of soil tillage not only resulted in higher dry bulk densities, but also higher aggregate densities, mechanical precompression stress values, mean macropore diameters as well as lower macroporosity and connectivity values compared to mulch tillage and strip tillage within the seed row. The computed tomography parameters are therefore highly suitable for providing Supplementary information about the compaction process. Overall, this study showed that strip tillage combines the advantages of no tillage and a deeper, soil conservation-oriented primary tillage because, on a small scale, it creates two distinct soil structures which are beneficial in terms of optimal plant growth as well as mechanical resistance by driving over the soil.

Introduction

Soil tillage aims to increase crop yields and at the same time preserve ecological soil functions, like habitat functions and regulatory functions for water and nutrients. In recent decades, an increasing number of practitioners have abandoned traditional tillage methods which turn the soil using a plough (conventional) in favour of conservation-oriented soil tillage (see e.g. Licht and Al-Kaisi, 2005, Nowatzki et al., 2009). The latter does not involve turning the soil with a plough, but instead only loosening it or leaving it completely untilled. Conservation tillage thus covers the soil surface with dead plant material (Gajri et al., 1999). This has both ecological and economic benefits for the soil, such as for example conserving water, preventing soil erosion, preserving economic productivity, reduced investments in machinery and less time spent on seedbed preparation (Carter, 2004, FAO, 1993). There are a variety of conservation tillage systems, which can be roughly divided into no tillage, mulch tillage, strip tillage, ridge tillage and minimum tillage (FAO, 1993). Strip tillage is special in that the soil is divided into a sowing zone and a soil management zone. The sowing zone, which is 5–15 cm wide, is worked mechanically down to a depth of 25 cm in order to optimise the soil and microclimate conditions for crop germination and growth, while the soil management zone is left untilled (Lal, 1983). Strip tillage therefore combines the conventional advantages of no tillage and those of deeper, non-turning primary tillage. It also allows farmers to combine individual working steps, thus reducing the number of times the field is driven over (Nowatzki et al., 2009).

However, any type of tillage affects the physical properties of the soil (Carter, 2004). In particular, there is a higher risk of compaction damage if the machinery used has not been adapted to the site and local conditions (Rücknagel et al., 2012, Koch et al., 2008). Compaction processes mainly affect parameters such as dry bulk density, aggregate stability, pore size distribution, infiltration rate and water conservation (FAO, 1993). This causes a deterioration in nutrient uptake and plant growth, while surface run-off increases (e.g. Paglai and Jones, 2002, Voorhees, 1986).

When investigating compaction effects in agricultural soils, conventional soil mechanical methods such as soil compression tests make it possible to map the compaction process and identify volumetric soil deformation for different initial soil structures. This yields indirect information about functional properties of the internal structure, such as the stress-strain relationship and aggregate density/bulk density ratio (Rücknagel et al., 2007). Typically, there is a lack of direct information about changes to geometric properties and morphologies of the void system. With this in mind, in recent decades non-destructive imaging methods, such as X-ray computed tomography (X-ray CT), have been increasingly used to successfully answer questions about soil physical properties (e.g. Keller et al., 2013, Schlüter et al., 2011, Schlüter et al., 2016). Computed tomography not only detects the spatial distribution of pore geometries and maps their positions precisely, but also enables quantitative image analysis.

Only a few studies have dealt with the combined analysis of structural differences between individual conservation soil tillage systems and compaction effects in those soil tillage systems with the aid of computed tomography scans (e.g. Dal Ferro et al., 2014, Jarvis et al., 2017, Luo et al., 2010). None of these studies considered the strip tillage method. In addition, no links have been established between conventional soil mechanical methods and those involving computed tomography. Using a combination of soil mechanical and computed tomography methods, this study therefore focuses on the influence of the special, two-part soil structure present under strip tillage compared to mulch tillage and no tillage. Specifically, it aims to answer the following questions: (i) Does the strip tillage method create small-scale structural differences within and between the seed rows? (ii) Under strip tillage, how do dry bulk density and aggregate density change as stress increases compared to mulch tillage and no tillage? (iii) To what extent can morphometric parameters, based on X-ray CT, map soil compaction behaviour in strip tillage compared to mulch tillage and no tillage? (iv) Are there correlations between the parameters measured using conventional methods and those measured with X-ray CT? (v) And what implications do the results have for agricultural land use? Overall, this study aims to explore to evaluating the role of the different soil tillage methods in the compaction process.

Section snippets

Trial site

Soil sampling was performed at the strip tillage experiment set up by the International Crop Production Centre in Bernburg-Strenzfeld (Germany, federal state Saxony-Anhalt, 11° 41′ E, 51° 50′ N; 80 m above sea level) in 2012. The average annual temperature is 9.7 °C and average annual precipitation is 511 mm. The soil type is a chernozem (FAO, 1998). The texture of the top soil (0–30 cm) contains 60 g kg−1 sand, 740 g kg−1 silt and 200 g kg−1 clay, constituting a silt loam (USDA, 1997). The total

Dry bulk density

Before the strip tillage trial was set up in 2012, BD at soil depths 2–8 cm and 12–18 cm was 1.15 g cm−3 and 1.36 g cm−3 respectively, regardless of tillage treatment (Table 1). In 2014 and 2015, neither depth displayed any significant differences in BD between mulch tillage and strip tillage WS on the one hand and strip tillage BS and no tillage on the other. By contrast, at both depths and in both years, BD was significantly lower for mulch tillage and strip tillage WS compared to strip tillage

Soil physical condition

Overall, there were intact soil structures for all tillage treatments, depths and years where BD values were always lower than a site-specific, root-limiting BD of 1.55 g cm−3 (Kaufmann et al., 2010) and Ks values were higher than 10 cm d−1 (Werner and Paul, 1999).

The tillage treatments created different soil physical conditions. On the one hand strip tillage WS and mulch tillage, and on the other strip tillage BS and no tillage, each displayed very similar soil structural properties.

Strip

Conclusions

The tillage treatments displayed clear differences in terms of initial structure and compaction behaviour. In addition to higher mechanical precompression stress values under strip tillage BS and no tillage, these also showed higher BDxi and AD throughout almost the entire load range compared to strip tillage WS and mulch tillage. The CT scans and the morphometric parameters also confirmed the mechanically more stable soil structure under strip tillage BS and no tillage, with higher mean

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the “Internationales DLG-Pflanzenbauzentrum Bernburg-Strenzfeld” for allowing them to take the soil samples at the Bernburg site. We gratefully acknowledge the expert technical assistance and guidance of J. M. Köhne and are grateful to V. Hentschel and F. Hickmann for their support in the field and laboratory work.

References (52)

  • H.J. Koch et al.

    Cumulative effect of annually repeated passes of heavy agricultural machinery on soil structural properties and sugar beet yield under two tillage systems

    Soil Till. Res.

    (2008)
  • M. Lebert et al.

    A method to predict the mechanical strength of agricultural soils

    Soil Till. Res.

    (1991)
  • M.A. Licht et al.

    Strip-tillage effect on seedbed soil temperature and other soil physical properties

    Soil Till. Res.

    (2005)
  • L. Luo et al.

    Quantification of 3-D soil macropore networks in different soil types and land uses using computed tomography

    J. Hydrol.

    (2010)
  • J. Rücknagel et al.

    Estimating precompression stress of structured soils on the basis of aggregate density and dry bulk density

    Soil Till. Res.

    (2007)
  • J. Rücknagel et al.

    Variance of mechanical precompression stress in graphic estimations using the Casagrande method and derived mathematical models

    Soil Till. Res.

    (2010)
  • J. Rücknagel et al.

    Impact on soil compaction of driving agricultural machinery over ground frozen near the surface

    Cold Reg. Sci. Technol.

    (2012)
  • J. Rücknagel et al.

    Uniaxial compression behaviour and soil physical quality of topsoils under conventional and conservation tillage

    Geoderma

    (2017)
  • W.D. Reynolds et al.

    Use of indicators and pore volume-function characteristics to quantify soil physical quality

    Geoderma

    (2009)
  • G.R. Blake et al.

    Bulk density

  • J.M. Bradford et al.

    Compressibility

  • A. Buades et al.

    A review of image denoising algorithms, with a new one

    Multiscale Model. Simul.

    (2005)
  • A. Casagrande

    The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical significance

    (1936)
  • J.L.B. Culley et al.

    Physical properties of a Typic Haplaquoll under conventional and no-tillage

    Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

    (1987)
  • J.J. Dewry et al.

    Pasture yield and soil physical property responses to soil compaction from treading and grazing—a review

    Aust. J. Soil Res.

    (2008)
  • T. Drees et al.

    Micromorphological characteristic of long-term no-tillage and conventionally tilled soils

    Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

    (1994)
  • Cited by (50)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text