Soil Use and Management · 2026
Investigating the Impacts of Tillage and Cover Crop Management on Soil Compaction in Long‐Term Agricultural Production Sites Using a Home‐Built Dynamic Penetrometer
Liebhard, G., Strohmeier, S., Stumpp, C., Klik, A., Nolz, R., Abraha, H. K., Hudek, C., Zhang, X., Li, Y., Sun, W. +14
, Zavattaro, L., Chiriac, O. P., Biddoccu, M., Bakacsi, Z., Pirkó, B., Guzmán, G., Gómez, J. A., Dostál, T., Zumr, D., Banov, M., Tzvetanova, E., Nikolov, D., Toth, M., Strauss, P.
Export
Investigating the Impacts of Tillage and Cover Crop Manageme…
Abstract
Agricultural management produces soil compaction depending on intensity of use, specific management and soil properties. We used an adapted, home‐built dynamic penetrometer to evaluate 20 long‐term sites of arable land, tree orchards, vineyards and grassland in Europe and China, each with different tillage and cover crop strategies. To ensure comparable results across all sites, we pre‐tested different penetrometer settings in the laboratory to cover all local conditions and provided Standard Operating Procedures. The laboratory tests showed that different settings in terms of falling hammer height and cone angle produced replicable results, and that narrow plough pans (3 cm) could be detected, even though their density was underestimated by 50%. The pre‐tests also demonstrated the dependence of the measurements on soil water content and texture, even under preset conditions close to field capacity. Consequently, the effects of different management practices were only compared directly for each site individually. The field study showed that tillage had a greater effect on penetration resistance than different cover crop systems and intensity. The majority of the more intensively tilled fields showed penetration resistance that was up to 3 MPa lower, at least partially, up to the ploughing depth compared to less intensively tilled fields. However, in only 27% of the fields, the no‐till or reduced‐till management led to an SPR greater than 2.5 MPa, indicating harmful compaction, compared to conventional management. The effects of cover crops on soil compaction were unclear with differences observed between different mixtures at only one site. Nevertheless, unlike bare soil, cover crops increased penetration resistance in the tillage horizon and reduced infiltration capacity in 75% of the fields investigated. Trends depending on management practices varied due to local soil properties. We therefore recommend farmers to include penetrometer measurements in their routine to recognize soil compaction in time and apply tailored mitigation strategies.
Show all
Agricultural management produces soil compaction depending on intensity of use, specific management and soil properties. We used an adapted, home‐built dynamic penetrometer to evaluate 20 long‐term sites of arable land, tree orchards, vineyards and grassland in Europe and China, each with different tillage and cover crop strategies. To ensure comparable results across all sites, we pre‐tested different penetrometer settings in the laboratory to cover all local conditions and provided Standard Operating Procedures. The laboratory tests showed that different settings in terms of falling hammer height and cone angle produced replicable results, and that narrow plough pans (3 cm) could be detected, even though their density was underestimated by 50%. The pre‐tests also demonstrated the dependence of the measurements on soil water content and texture, even under preset conditions close to field capacity. Consequently, the effects of different management practices were only compared directly for each site individually. The field study showed that tillage had a greater effect on penetration resistance than different cover crop systems and intensity. The majority of the more intensively tilled fields showed penetration resistance that was up to 3 MPa lower, at least partially, up to the ploughing depth compared to less intensively tilled fields. However, in only 27% of the fields, the no‐till or reduced‐till management led to an SPR greater than 2.5 MPa, indicating harmful compaction, compared to conventional management. The effects of cover crops on soil compaction were unclear with differences observed between different mixtures at only one site. Nevertheless, unlike bare soil, cover crops increased penetration resistance in the tillage horizon and reduced infiltration capacity in 75% of the fields investigated. Trends depending on management practices varied due to local soil properties. We therefore recommend farmers to include penetrometer measurements in their routine to recognize soil compaction in time and apply tailored mitigation strategies.
Agricultural management produces soil compaction depending on intensity of use, specific management and soil properties. We used an adapted, home‐built dynamic penetrometer to evaluate 20 long‐term sites of arable land, tree orchards, vineyards and grassland in Europe and China, each with different tillage and cover crop strategies. To ensure comparable results across all sites, we pre‐tested different penetrometer settings in the laboratory to cover all local conditions and provided Standard Operating Procedures. The laboratory tests showed that different settings in terms of falling hammer height and cone angle produced replicable results, and that narrow plough pans (3 cm) could be detected, even though their density was underestimated by 50%. The pre‐tests also demonstrated the dependence of the measurements on soil water content and texture, even under preset conditions close to field capacity. Consequently, the effects of different management practices were only compared directly for each site individually. The field study showed that tillage had a greater effect on penetration resistance than different cover crop systems and intensity. The majority of the more intensively tilled fields showed penetration resistance that was up to 3 MPa lower, at least partially, up to the ploughing depth compared to less intensively tilled fields. However, in only 27% of the fields, the no‐till or reduced‐till management led to an SPR greater than 2.5 MPa, indicating harmful compaction, compared to conventional management. The effects of cover crops on soil compaction were unclear with differences observed between different mixtures at only one site. Nevertheless, unlike bare soil, cover crops increased penetration resistance in the tillage horizon and reduced infiltration capacity in 75% of the fields investigated. Trends depending on management practices varied due to local soil properties. We therefore recommend farmers to include penetrometer measurements in their routine to recognize soil compaction in time and apply tailored mitigation strategies.
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.
soil penetration resistance
↑ 5↓ 1= 215
- decrease
No-till, permanent spontaneous vegetation cover vs. Reduced till, permanent multi species mixture coversignificance not stated · 0–30 cm · Donnerskirchen · 0–30 cm; permanent spontaneous no-till versus reduced tillage with permanent cover mix; differences in parts of profile, no whole-span pairwise test.
Source · p. 8 “The lowest compaction was measured in the nnoyard with a surface cover that grew spontaneously.”
- increase
No-till, temporary multi species cover crop mixture vs. Disking, no cover cropsignificance not stated · 0–40 cm · Balatoncsicsó · 0–40 cm; temporary multi-species cover/no-till versus bare disking; separation varies with depth.
Source · p. 8 “The no--till variant with temporal cover crop had higher com paction across the soil profile down to 40 cm”
- increase
Tilled, temporary sown multi species cover crop vs. Tilled, no cover cropsignificant · 0–30 cm · La Partera · 0–30 cm inter-rows; cover poorly developed; one seedbed pass versus two–three passes in bare soil; bundled tillage and cover comparison.
Source · p. 8 “At the La Partera site (4), the vineyard with a cover crop mix was compacted in the inter--rows. In contrast, management without cover crops had loose soil down to 30 cm soil depth.”
Source · p. 8 “the differences”
Source · p. 8 “due to cover crop management are significant.”
- increase
seeded wildflower cover crop mix vs. spontaneous cover crop vegetationsignificant · Chesley, Kent · No-till apple orchard; seeded wildflower mixture versus spontaneous cover; profile comparison, no chart-derived values.
Source · p. 10 “The orchard with the spontaneous cover crop vegetation had a maximum penetration resistance of about 2.5 MPa. The other orchard with a seeded wildflower cover crop mix had a maximum at about 3.5 MPa in the similar soil depth.”
Source · p. 17 “significant in two cases only (5, 8).”
- increase
No-till, permanent multi-species vegetation cover vs. No-till, permanent spontaneous vegetation coversignificant · 0–20 cm · Baishui (8) · 0–20 cm; seeded permanent cover mix versus spontaneous vegetation, both no-till; text's species assignment differs from Table2; generic mix retained.
Source · p. 10 “The second no--till system with ryegrass or clo ver as cover crops had twice the SPR down to 20 cm depth.”
Source · p. 17 “significant in two cases only (5, 8).”
- increase
No-till, permanent multi-species vegetation cover vs. Ploughed twice a year, no cover cropsignificant · 0–20 cm · Baishui (8) · 0–20 cm; permanent cover/no-till versus twice-ploughed bare orchard; significant profile separation shown by95%CIs.
Source · p. 10 “The lowest compaction was measured in the most intensively managed orchards, with or without cover crops, which were ploughed twice a year.”
Source · p. 9 “Confidence intervals ( *α* = 0.05) are given in light colour.”
- decrease
No-tillage, cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropsignificance not stated · Nagyhörcsök · Plough horizon; exact depth interval not stated; no-tillage cover versus conventional ploughing/no cover according to Table2 (Fig5 legend labels plough cover).
Source · p. 10 “At the Nagyhörcsök site (10), no--tillage management resulted in less compaction than both the minimum and conventional till age systems at the plough horizon.”
- increase
No-tillage, cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropsignificance not stated · 0–30 cm · Hollabrunn · 0–30 cm tillage horizon; no-till cover versus ploughed bare; differences vary over profile, no single whole-span pairwise test.
Source · p. 10 “The no--tillage with cover crop management had the opposite effect with highest penetration resistance in the topsoil and lowest compaction below 30 cm soil depth compared to the other sys tems.”
- decrease
No-tillage, cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropsignificance not stated · 30–50 cm · Hollabrunn · 30–50 cm measured subsoil; no-till cover versus ploughed bare; profile-level direction, CIs overlap in portions.
Source · p. 10 “The no--tillage with cover crop management had the opposite effect with highest penetration resistance in the topsoil and lowest compaction below 30 cm soil depth compared to the other sys tems.”
- increase
shallow stubble tillage, temporary cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropsignificant · 10–20 cm · Řisuty · 10–20 cm, below shallow tillage but within plough horizon; cover/tillage bundled.
Source · p. 10 “both ploughed fields (with or without temporary cover crop) had similar penetration resistance profiles with loose soil in the ploughing horizon in about 20 cm soil depth. Similarly, shallow tillage management led to a penetration re sistance below 2 MPa in its respective tillage depth of about 10 cm.”
Source · p. 11 “Confidence intervals ( *α* = 0.05)”
- increase
No-till, no cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropsignificance not stated · 0–20 cm · Yangling · 0–20 cm; no additional cover crops in either system; profile differences lack numeric pairwise test.
Source · p. 10 “At the Yangling site (13), soil compac tion was higher under no--till than under conventional manage ment in the top 20 cm.”
- no effect
No-till, no cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropnot significant · 20–40 cm · Yangling · 20–40 cm measured subsoil; stated similar profiles, Fig5 CIs overlap.
Source · p. 10 “Below 20 cm, the degree of soil compaction was similar.”
- no effect
cover crops (agreeing mixtures) vs. No cover cropnot significant · 0–40 cm · Villafranca Piemonte · Yongshou · 0–40 cm measured profiles; ryegrass/vetch(Villafranca), green bean/black kidney bean/buckwheat/Gaodan grass(Yongshou), agreeing individual profiles versus bare control; same ploughing within each site.
Source · p. 10 “All three penetration resistance profiles are similar with loose soil in the ploughing horizon and an increase below.”
Source · p. 10 “At the Yongshou site (15), management of the main crops was the same, and only cover crops varied, which did not affect the SPR profiles differently.”
- decrease
ploughed arable land vs. Fallow landsignificant · 10–20 cm · Troyan · Tsalapitsa, Plovdiv · 10–20 cm within tillage horizon; fallow reference and cultivated arable change; depth-restricted Fig5 separation.
Source · p. 10 “The effects of management were similar at both sites. Ploughing resulted in a loose soil in the tillage horizon and a strong increase below.”
- increase
Grassland, mowed vs. Fallow landsignificance not stated · 0–15 cm · Troyan · 0–15 cm; mowed grassland versus fallow; no exact pairwise test reported for full interval.
Source · p. 17 “Thus, grassland showed more compaction near the topsoil but similar compaction below 15 cm to fallow land (16).”
organic carbon content
↑ 6↓ 511
- decrease
white clover cover crop monoculture vs. spontaneous cover crop vegetationp = 0.01 · 20–30 cm · Baishui (6) · 20–30 cm; white clover versus spontaneous cover, both minimum tillage.
Numbers
- treatment 1.99 vs. control 2.44 % (-18.44 %) · 20–30 cm
Source · p. 13 “2.44 (0.16) 1.99 (0.04)”
Source · p. 13 “0.010 0.010”
- increase
No-till, permanent multi-species vegetation cover vs. Ploughed twice a year, no cover cropp = 0.008 · 0–20 cm · Baishui (8) · 0–20 cm; no-till permanent mix versus twice-ploughed bare.
Numbers
- treatment 1.64 vs. control 1.07 % (+53.27 %) · 0–20 cm
Source · p. 13 “1/5: **0.008**”
Source · p. 16 “Increases in the soil organic carbon content due to conservation management were only measurable at a few sites, though.”
- decrease
No-till, permanent multi-species vegetation cover vs. Ploughed twice a year, no cover cropp = 0.016 · 20–60 cm · Baishui (8) · 20–60 cm; same bundled systems; opposite direction to topsoil.
Numbers
- treatment 0.76 vs. control 1.19 % (-36.13 %) · 20–60 cm
Source · p. 13 “1/5: **0.016**”
Source · p. 10 “At three sites, organic carbon levels differed across the soil profile (sites 8, 11”
- increase
No-tillage, cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropsignificant · 0–15 cm · Hollabrunn · 0–15 cm; no-till cover versus ploughed bare; printed pairwise p0.000 interpreted at .05, not exactzero.
Numbers
- treatment 1.76 vs. control 1.27 % (+38.58 %) · 0–15 cm
Source · p. 13 “1.76 (0.06) 1.62 (0.05) 1.27 (0.05)”
Source · p. 13 “1/3: **0.000**”
- decrease
No-tillage, cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropp = 0.009 · 16–30 cm · Hollabrunn · 16–30 cm; no-till cover versus ploughed bare.
Numbers
- treatment 1.29 vs. control 1.4 % (-7.857 %) · 16–30 cm
Source · p. 13 “1.29 (0.06) 1.33 (0.03) 1.40 (0.04)”
Source · p. 13 “1/3: **0.009**”
- increase
No-tillage, cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropp = 0.001 · 31–50 cm · Hollabrunn · 31–50 cm; no-till cover versus ploughed bare.
Numbers
- treatment 0.47 vs. control 0.33 % (+42.42 %) · 31–50 cm
Source · p. 13 “0.47 (0.05) 0.37 (0.03) 0.33 (0.02)”
Source · p. 13 “1/3: **0.001**”
- increase
Reduced tillage with cultivator, cover crop mix vs. Ploughed, no cover cropp = 0.003 · 0–15 cm · Hollabrunn · 0–15 cm; reduced tillage cover versus ploughed bare.
Numbers
- treatment 1.62 vs. control 1.27 % (+27.56 %)
Source · p. 13 “1.76 (0.06) 1.62 (0.05) 1.27 (0.05)”
Source · p. 13 “2/3: **0.003**”
- decrease
Reduced tillage with cultivator, cover crop mix vs. Ploughed, no cover cropp = 0.021 · 16–30 cm · Hollabrunn · 16–30 cm; reduced tillage cover versus ploughed bare.
Numbers
- treatment 1.33 vs. control 1.4 % (-5 %)
Source · p. 13 “1.29 (0.06) 1.33 (0.03) 1.40 (0.04)”
Source · p. 13 “2/3: **0.021**”
- increase
Reduced tillage with cultivator, cover crop mix vs. Ploughed, no cover cropp = 0.032 · 31–50 cm · Hollabrunn · 31–50 cm; reduced tillage cover versus ploughed bare.
Numbers
- treatment 0.37 vs. control 0.33 % (+12.12 %)
Source · p. 13 “0.47 (0.05) 0.37 (0.03) 0.33 (0.02)”
Source · p. 13 “2/3: **0.032**”
- decrease
Grassland-crop rotation with maize and alfalfa cover vs. Grassland, permanent spontaneous coversignificant · 0–15 cm · Tetto Frati · 0–15 cm; maize/alfalfa rotation versus permanent grassland; printed p0.000.
Numbers
- treatment 1.43 vs. control 3.81 % (-62.47 %)
Source · p. 14 “3.81 (0.61) 1.43 (0.09) 2.23 (0.21)”
Source · p. 14 “1/2: **0.000**”
- increase
No-tillage, cover crop vs. Ploughed 3 times a year, no coverp = 0.002 · 0–20 cm · Luochuan · 0–20 cm; no-till permanent clover cover versus three ploughs/year bare orchard.
Numbers
- treatment 1.09 vs. control 0.36 % (+202.8 %)
Source · p. 13 “1.09 (0.17) 0.86 (0.08) 0.92 (0.21) 0.36 (0.04)”
Source · p. 13 “1/4: **0.002**”
infiltration capacity
↓ 55
- decrease
No-till, permanent spontaneous vegetation cover vs. Reduced till, alternating interrow spontaneous vegetation coversignificant · Donnerskirchen · Permanent spontaneous no-till versus reduced till/alternating vegetation; surface infiltration.
Numbers
- treatment 19.6 vs. control 83.8 cm h−1 (-76.61 %)
Source · p. 16 “In Donnerskirchen (1), no--till vineyards had the lowest bulk densities and SPRs, but still had lower infiltration rates than vineyards with reduced tillage management.”
Source · p. 15 “1/3: **0.000** , 2/3: **0.003**”
- decrease
Reduced till, permanent multi species mixture cover vs. Reduced till, alternating interrow spontaneous vegetation coverp = 0.003 · Donnerskirchen · Permanent cover mixture versus alternating spontaneous cover, both reduced tillage.
Numbers
- treatment 37.9 vs. control 83.8 cm h−1 (-54.77 %)
Source · p. 15 “1/3: **0.000** , 2/3: **0.003**”
Source · p. 12 “More intensive use of cover crops— which was often related to lower tillage intensity—tended to decrease infiltration capacity (1, 4, 11).”
- decrease
Tilled, temporary sown multi species cover crop vs. Tilled, no cover cropp = 0.009 · La Partera · Temporary cover crop/one tillage pass versus bare/two–three passes.
Numbers
- treatment 87 vs. control 222.2 cm h−1 (-60.85 %)
Source · p. 12 “More intensive use of cover crops— which was often related to lower tillage intensity—tended to decrease infiltration capacity (1, 4, 11).”
Source · p. 15 “**0.009**”
- decrease
No-tillage, cover crop vs. Reduced tillage with cultivator, cover crop mixp = 0.037 · Hollabrunn · No-till cover versus reduced tillage cover; Table4 bold pair1/2, not1/3.
Numbers
- treatment 65 vs. control 104.2 cm h−1 (-37.62 %)
Source · p. 15 “**0.037**”
Source · p. 12 “More intensive use of cover crops— which was often related to lower tillage intensity—tended to decrease infiltration capacity (1, 4, 11).”
- decrease
Grassland-crop rotation with maize and alfalfa cover vs. Grassland, permanent spontaneous coverp = 0.042 · Tetto Frati · Maize rotation with alfalfa cover versus permanent grassland; lower infiltration in rotation.
Numbers
- treatment 18.1 vs. control 95 cm h−1 (-80.95 %)
Source · p. 12 “The opposite effect was found only at site 18.”
Source · p. 15 “**0.042**”
bulk density
↑ 3↓ 14
- decrease
No-till, temporary multi species cover crop mixture vs. Disking, no cover cropsignificant · 0–20 cm · Balatoncsicsó · 0–20 cm; no-till temporary mix versus bare disking; Bonferroni pair p=.011(0–10),.002(10–20).
Numbers
- treatment 1.42 vs. control 1.58 g cm−3 (-10.13 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 1.39 vs. control 1.61 g cm−3 (-13.66 %) · 10–20 cm
Source · p. 15 “1.49 (0.07) 1.42 (0.04) 1.58 (0.06)”
Source · p. 15 “2/3: **0.002**”
- increase
No-tillage, cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropp = 0.029 · 0–20 cm · Hollabrunn · 0–20 cm; no-till cover versus ploughed bare; Table4 bold pair1/3.
Numbers
- treatment 1.43 vs. control 1.27 g cm−3 (+12.6 %)
Source · p. 15 “1.43 (0.21) 1.32 (0.16) 1.27 (0.15)”
Source · p. 15 “**0.029**”
- increase
No-till, no cover crop vs. Ploughed, no cover cropp = 0.048 · 0–10 cm · Yangling · 0–10 cm; no-till versus ploughed, no cover in either.
Numbers
- treatment 1.46 vs. control 1.29 g cm−3 (+13.18 %)
Source · p. 15 “1.46 (0.02) 1.29 (0.05)”
Source · p. 15 “**0.048**”
- increase
Grassland-crop rotation with maize and alfalfa cover vs. Grassland, permanent spontaneous coverp = 0.001 · 0–15 cm · Tetto Frati · 0–15 cm; maize/alfalfa rotation versus permanent grassland.
Numbers
- treatment 1.33 vs. control 1.07 g cm−3 (+24.3 %)
Source · p. 15 “1.07 (0.07) 1.33 (0.08) 1.31 (0.06)”
Source · p. 15 “1/2: **0.001**”
Set-up
Treatments
- management systemsTillage system
- No-till, permanent spontaneous vegetation coverZero tillageReduced till, permanent multi species mixture coverReduced tillageReduced till, alternating interrow spontaneous vegetation coverReduced tillageNo-till, temporary multi species cover crop mixtureZero tillageDisking, no cover cropDiskingTilled, temporary sown multi species cover cropCover cropsTilled, no cover cropNo cover cropseeded wildflower cover crop mixCover cropsspontaneous cover crop vegetationCover cropswhite clover cover crop monocultureCover cropsNo-till, permanent multi-species vegetation coverZero tillagePloughed twice a year, no cover cropPlowingPloughed 3 times a year, no coverPlowingNo-tillage, cover cropZero tillagePloughed, no cover cropPlowingReduced tillage with cultivator, cover crop mixReduced tillageshallow stubble tillage, temporary cover cropReduced tillageNo-till, no cover cropZero tillagecover crops (agreeing mixtures)Cover cropsNo cover cropploughed arable landArable landFallow landFallowsGrassland, mowedPastures and managed grasslandGrassland-crop rotation with maize and alfalfa coverCrop rotationGrassland-crop rotation with maize and spontaneous coverCrop rotationGrassland, permanent spontaneous coverPastures and managed grassland
Measured
- soil penetration resistancePenetration resistance
- Unit
- MPa
- Method
- home-built dynamic penetrometer; profiles averaged to cm increments; 95% confidence intervals
- infiltration capacityWater infiltration rate
- Unit
- cm h−1
- organic carbon contentSoil organic carbon
- Unit
- %
- bulk density
- Unit
- g cm−3
Sites
Donnerskirchen
- Location
- Donnerskirchen, Austria
- Land use
- Vineyard
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty loam | – | – | – | – |
Balatoncsicsó
- Location
- Balatoncsicsó, Hungary
- Land use
- Vineyard
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty loam | – | – | – | – |
Rocchetta Ligure
- Location
- Rocchetta Ligure, Italy
- Land use
- Vineyard
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Loam | – | – | – | – |
La Partera
- Location
- La Partera, Spain
- Land use
- Vineyard
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Sandy loam | – | – | – | – |
Chesley, Kent
- Location
- Chesley, Kent, United Kingdom
- Land use
- Apple orchardFruit trees
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty loam, Loam | – | – | – | – |
Baishui (6)
- Location
- Baishui, China
- Land use
- Apple orchardFruit trees
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty clay loam | – | – | – | – |
Qianyang
- Location
- Qianyang, China
- Land use
- Apple orchardFruit trees
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty Clay Loam | – | – | – | – |
Baishui (8)
- Location
- Baishui, China
- Land use
- Apple orchardFruit trees
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silt loam, Silty clay loam | – | – | – | – |
Luochuan
- Location
- Luochuan, China
- Land use
- Apple orchardFruit trees
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty Clay, Silty clay loam | – | – | – | – |
Nagyhörcsök
- Location
- Nagyhörcsök, Hungary
- Land use
- ArableArable land
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silt | – | – | – | – |
Hollabrunn
- Location
- Hollabrunn, Austria
- Land use
- ArableArable land
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty loam | – | – | – | – |
Řisuty
- Location
- Řisuty, Czech Republic
- Land use
- ArableArable land
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Sandy loam | – | – | – | – |
Yangling
- Location
- Yangling, China
- Land use
- ArableArable land
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty clay loam | – | – | – | – |
Villafranca Piemonte
- Location
- Villafranca Piemonte, Italy
- Land use
- ArableArable land
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Sandy loam, Loam | – | – | – | – |
Yongshou
- Location
- Yongshou, China
- Land use
- ArableArable land
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty clay Loam | – | – | – | – |
Troyan
- Location
- Troyan, Bulgaria
- Land use
- ArableArable land, FallowFallows, GrasslandPastures and managed grassland
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Sandy loam | – | – | – | – |
Tsalapitsa, Plovdiv
- Location
- Tsalapitsa, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
- Land use
- ArableArable land, FallowFallows
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Sandy clay | – | – | – | – |
Tetto Frati
- Location
- Tetto Frati, Italy
- Land use
- GrasslandPastures and managed grassland
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Silty loam | – | – | – | – |
Colt Park
- Location
- Colt Park, United Kingdom
- Land use
- GrasslandPastures and managed grassland
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Sandy loam | – | – | – | – |
Plovdiv
- Location
- Plovdiv, Bulgaria
- Land use
- GrasslandPastures and managed grassland
| Depth | Texture | Clay | pH | Organic C | Bulk density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| site soil (depth not stated) | Sandy clay | – | – | – | – |
Similar papers
Long Term Effects of Ploughing and Conservation Tillage Methods on Earthworm Abundance and Crumb Ratio
Dekemati et al. · 2020 · Agronomy
7 shared concepts
14 findings1 site
Effect of Subsoil Breaking on Improvement of Soil Physical Properties in Agricultural Land
Zhang et al. · 2019 · Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
7 shared concepts
6 findings5 sites
The effects of conservation tillage practices on the soil water-holding capacity of a non-irrigated apple orchard in the Loess Plateau, China
Liu et al. · 2013 · Soil and Tillage Research
7 shared concepts
16 findings1 site
Opportunities for Mitigating Soil Compaction in Europe—Case Studies from the SoilCare Project Using Soil-Improving Cropping Systems
Piccoli et al. · 2022 · Land
9 shared concepts
26 findings5 sites
Effects of tillage systems on physical properties of a cohesive yellow argisol in the northern state of Espírito Santo, Brazil
Zuffo et al. · 2013 · Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo
6 shared concepts
17 findings1 site