Land · 2024
Soil-Water Retention Curves and Pore-Size Distribution in a Clay Loam Under Different Tillage Systems
Jabro, J., Stevens, W., Iversen, W., Sainju, U., Allen, B., Dangi, S., Chen, C.
Export
Soil-Water Retention Curves and Pore-Size Distribution in a …
Abstract
Tillage practices significantly impact soil structure, pore-size distribution (PSD), and soil-water retention curves (SWRC). The SWRC, which represents the relationship between soil water content and soil water potential, is important for various studies involving plants, soil, environment, irrigation, drainage, modeling, and hydrology. In this study, the HYPROP method was used to measure SWRCs and estimate soil physical and hydraulic properties under conventional tillage (CT), strip tillage (ST), and no-tillage (NT) systems in clay loam soil. Undisturbed soil cores were collected from 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm depths within sugarbeet rows, with sampling replicated five times following a randomized block design. Soil-water retention curves were modeled using the van Genuchten (vG) model for each depth under each tillage system. The results showed that none of the soil parameters from the vG equation, plant-available soil water content, or pore-size distribution were significantly influenced by tillage type. This lack of significant difference may be attributed to considerable soil disturbance from sugarbeet root harvesting, freeze and thaw cycles between tillage and sampling, or soil displacement caused by beet root growth. However, small differences in soil parameters among the three tillage systems were noted at both soil depths, due to minor variations in soil porosity and pore-size distribution. Regardless of the tillage system, understanding SWRC is essential for insights into soil and water processes such as water flow, soil water storage, and water availability for plants.
Show all
Tillage practices significantly impact soil structure, pore-size distribution (PSD), and soil-water retention curves (SWRC). The SWRC, which represents the relationship between soil water content and soil water potential, is important for various studies involving plants, soil, environment, irrigation, drainage, modeling, and hydrology. In this study, the HYPROP method was used to measure SWRCs and estimate soil physical and hydraulic properties under conventional tillage (CT), strip tillage (ST), and no-tillage (NT) systems in clay loam soil. Undisturbed soil cores were collected from 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm depths within sugarbeet rows, with sampling replicated five times following a randomized block design. Soil-water retention curves were modeled using the van Genuchten (vG) model for each depth under each tillage system. The results showed that none of the soil parameters from the vG equation, plant-available soil water content, or pore-size distribution were significantly influenced by tillage type. This lack of significant difference may be attributed to considerable soil disturbance from sugarbeet root harvesting, freeze and thaw cycles between tillage and sampling, or soil displacement caused by beet root growth. However, small differences in soil parameters among the three tillage systems were noted at both soil depths, due to minor variations in soil porosity and pore-size distribution. Regardless of the tillage system, understanding SWRC is essential for insights into soil and water processes such as water flow, soil water storage, and water availability for plants.
Tillage practices significantly impact soil structure, pore-size distribution (PSD), and soil-water retention curves (SWRC). The SWRC, which represents the relationship between soil water content and soil water potential, is important for various studies involving plants, soil, environment, irrigation, drainage, modeling, and hydrology. In this study, the HYPROP method was used to measure SWRCs and estimate soil physical and hydraulic properties under conventional tillage (CT), strip tillage (ST), and no-tillage (NT) systems in clay loam soil. Undisturbed soil cores were collected from 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm depths within sugarbeet rows, with sampling replicated five times following a randomized block design. Soil-water retention curves were modeled using the van Genuchten (vG) model for each depth under each tillage system. The results showed that none of the soil parameters from the vG equation, plant-available soil water content, or pore-size distribution were significantly influenced by tillage type. This lack of significant difference may be attributed to considerable soil disturbance from sugarbeet root harvesting, freeze and thaw cycles between tillage and sampling, or soil displacement caused by beet root growth. However, small differences in soil parameters among the three tillage systems were noted at both soil depths, due to minor variations in soil porosity and pore-size distribution. Regardless of the tillage system, understanding SWRC is essential for insights into soil and water processes such as water flow, soil water storage, and water availability for plants.
Findings
What changed what, as the paper reports it. Grouped by the measured property. The largest groups are open; open the others as you need them.
pore-size distribution (PSD)
↑ 1↓ 1= 13
- no effect
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · Whole micro-, meso- and macropore classes at both depths; also 100–1000 micrometre subrange averaged across depths. ST/NT individually. Excludes subrange-specific opposite effects at individual depths (findings 9–10).
Source · p. 11 “Statistical results from one-way ANOVA showed that tillage had no significant impact on PSD for all three pore-size classes at both soil depths”
Source · p. 11 “there were no significant differences between the means of PSD among three tillage systems across the two soil depths at pore sizes ranging from 100 to 1000 µm”
- decrease
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–15 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · 100–1000 micrometre mesopore subrange; ST and NT individually versus CT
Numbers
- treatment 0.00083 vs. control 0.00108 cm-1 (-23.15 %) · 0–15 cm · ST
- treatment 0.00066 vs. control 0.00108 cm-1 (-38.89 %) · 0–15 cm · NT
Source · p. 11 “mean values of PSD for pore sizes between 100 to1000 µm within the meso-pores class under CT (0.00108) were significantly greater than those for ST (0.00083) and NT (0.00066) at the 0–15 cm depth”
- increase
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 15–30 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · 100–1000 micrometre mesopore subrange; ST and NT individually versus CT
Numbers
- treatment 0.00054 vs. control 0.00043 cm-1 (+25.58 %) · 15–30 cm · ST
- treatment 0.00056 vs. control 0.00043 cm-1 (+30.23 %) · 15–30 cm · NT
Source · p. 11 “at this pore size range, contrasting results were observed at the 15–30 cm depth, where average values of PSD were significantly smaller in CT (0.00043) compared to ST (0.00054) and NT (0.00056) practices”
soil-water retention curves and estimated alpha and n parameters
= 11
- no effect
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · ST and NT separately versus CT; 0–15,15–30 and combined 0–30 cm; fitted alpha and n parameters
Source · p. 6 “Estimated parameters of SWRCs based on Equation (1) were not significantly affected by tillage at 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm depths or when averaged across both depths”
water content at saturation
= 11
- no effect
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · ST and NT separately versus CT; both layers and their average
Numbers
- treatment 0.4421 vs. control 0.4528 cm3 cm-3 (-2.363 %) · 0–30 cm · ST; averages across depths
- treatment 0.4328 vs. control 0.4528 cm3 cm-3 (-4.417 %) · 0–30 cm · NT; averages across depths
Source · p. 12 “Our results indicated that all soil parameters of the vG equation and plant-available soil water content were not significantly affected by the type of tillage”
residual water content
= 11
- no effect
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · ST and NT separately versus CT; both layers and their average
Numbers
- treatment 0.2465 vs. control 0.2278 cm3 cm-3 (+8.209 %) · 0–30 cm · ST; averages across depths
- treatment 0.2342 vs. control 0.2278 cm3 cm-3 (+2.809 %) · 0–30 cm · NT; averages across depths
Source · p. 12 “Our results indicated that all soil parameters of the vG equation and plant-available soil water content were not significantly affected by the type of tillage”
bulk density
= 11
- no effect
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · ST and NT separately versus CT; both layers and their average
Numbers
- treatment 1.384 vs. control 1.374 g cm-3 (+0.7278 %) · ST; averaged across depths
- treatment 1.428 vs. control 1.374 g cm-3 (+3.93 %) · NT; averaged across depths
Source · p. 9 “Tillage did not significantly affect soil bulk density obtained from soil cores using the HYPROP system at 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm depths or when averaged across two depths”
volumetric water content at 33 kPa
= 11
- no effect
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · ST and NT separately versus CT; 0–15,15–30 and combined depths
Numbers
- treatment 0.3156 vs. control 0.3209 cm3 cm-3 (-1.652 %) · ST; averaged across depths
- treatment 0.3049 vs. control 0.3209 cm3 cm-3 (-4.986 %) · NT; averaged across depths
Source · p. 9 “Volumetric water content at 33 and 1500 kPa and PAWC of the soil obtained from the fitted SWRC, did not differ significantly among the three tillage systems at either depth or in the combined depth”
volumetric water content at 1500 kPa
= 11
- no effect
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · ST and NT separately versus CT; 0–15,15–30 and combined depths
Numbers
- treatment 0.2596 vs. control 0.2535 cm3 cm-3 (+2.406 %) · ST; averaged across depths
- treatment 0.2452 vs. control 0.2535 cm3 cm-3 (-3.274 %) · NT; averaged across depths
Source · p. 9 “Volumetric water content at 33 and 1500 kPa and PAWC of the soil obtained from the fitted SWRC, did not differ significantly among the three tillage systems at either depth or in the combined depth”
plant available water capacity (PAWC)
= 11
- no effect
ST and NT (agreeing variants) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 0–30 cm · spring 2019 · Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC) · ST and NT separately versus CT; 0–15,15–30 and combined depths
Numbers
- treatment 0.0557 vs. control 0.0673 cm3 cm-3 (-17.24 %) · ST; averaged across depths
- treatment 0.0596 vs. control 0.0673 cm3 cm-3 (-11.44 %) · NT; averaged across depths
Source · p. 9 “Volumetric water content at 33 and 1500 kPa and PAWC of the soil obtained from the fitted SWRC, did not differ significantly among the three tillage systems at either depth or in the combined depth”
Set-up
Treatments
- tillage management systemsTillage system
- ST and NT (agreeing variants)Conservation tillageconventional tillage (CT)Conventional tillage
Measured
- soil-water retention curves and estimated alpha and n parametersWater retention curve
- Method
- HYPROP evaporation measurements fitted with van Genuchten equation
- water content at saturationSaturated water content
- Unit
- cm3 cm-3
- Method
- HYPROP; van Genuchten fitting
- residual water content
- Unit
- cm3 cm-3
- Method
- HYPROP; van Genuchten fitting
- bulk density
- Unit
- g cm-3
- Method
- HYPROP cores
- volumetric water content at 33 kPaVolumetric water content at field capacity
- Unit
- cm3 cm-3
- Method
- Fitted SWRC at 33 kPa
- volumetric water content at 1500 kPaVolumetric water content at permanent wilting point (pF 4.2)
- Unit
- cm3 cm-3
- Method
- Fitted SWRC at 1500 kPa
- plant available water capacity (PAWC)Available water capacity
- Unit
- cm3 cm-3
- Method
- Fitted water content at 33 minus 1500 kPa
- pore-size distribution (PSD)Pore size distribution (PSD)
- Unit
- cm-1
- Method
- Derivative of fitted retention curve
Sites
Montana State University Eastern Agricultural Research Center (EARC)
- Location
- Sidney, MT, USA47.73° N, 104.15° W
- Climate
- 360 mm annual precipitation
- Soil
- Argiustolls (Vertic, fine, smectitic, frigid) · USDA
- Land use
- irrigated sugarbeetPermanently irrigated land
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–15 cm | clay loam | 46.5 % | – | – | – |
| 15–30 cm | – | 46.8 % | – | – | – |
Similar papers
Can yield, soil C and aggregation be improved under long‐term conservation agriculture in the eastern Indo‐Gangetic plain of India?
Mondal et al. · 2021 · European Journal of Soil Science
9 shared concepts
8 findings1 site
The Impact of Conservation Tillage Systems on Soil Pore Size Distribution and Hydraulic Properties Under Saline Conditions and Barley-Safflower Rotation
Tadayonnejad & Shahmansouri · 2024 · Journal of Soil and Plant Interactions
8 shared concepts
11 findings1 site
Water Retention and Availability in an Ultisol Under an Integrated Crop–Livestock–Forest System in the Matopiba Region, Brazil
Silva et al. · 2026 · Land
6 shared concepts
18 findings1 site
Soil preparation systems and type of fertilization as affecting physical attributes of cohesive soil under eucalyptus in Northeastern Brazil
Nunes et al. · 2022 · Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy
8 shared concepts
21 findings1 site
Soil properties and grape yield of vineyard as affected by sawdust addition in a semi-arid region
Kebalo & Deli̇bacak · 2022 · EURASIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE (EJSS)
5 shared concepts
25 findings1 site