SSSAJ Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 49:1264-1270 (1985)
© 1985 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hill, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Cruse, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Hill, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Cruse, R. M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Hill, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Cruse, R. M.

Tillage Effects on Soil Water Retention and Pore Size Distribution of Two Mollisols1

R. L. Hill, R. Horton and R. M. Cruse2

ABSTRACT

A study was conducted to determine the effects of conservation and conventional tillage on soil water retention and pore size distribution of two mollisols. Two locations were used, each having randomized complete-block designs with three replications of continuous-corn (Zea mays L.) plots under no-tillage, reduced tillage, and conventional tillage. One location, site 1, was in its 2nd yr of tillage experimentation on a Canisteo series soil (Typic Haplaquolls), and the other location, site 2, was in its 8th yr on a Nicollet series soil (Aquic Hapludolls). Undisturbed soil cores were obtained near the planted row at the 5.0- to 7.5-cm and 10.0- to 12.5-cm depths from the two sites. Soil water retention of the soil cores was measured at water matric potentials of 0 to –39.22 kPa. Pore size distribution was estimated by using a capillary model. Statistical differences in soil water retention due to tillage treatments appeared at site 1, with general means comparisons of reduced tillage > no tillage > conventional tillage in the amount of water retained at any matric potential. Reduced tilled soil generally retained a significantly (LSD 0.05) larger quantity of water than conventionally tilled soil. No-tilled soil was not significantly different from reduced tilled or conventionally tilled soil in its water retention characteristics. Differences in water retention between tillage treatments were not significant at site 2, but trends in the means comparisons similar to those of site 1, were observed. Analysis of variance failed to show significant tillage effects for the pore size distribution regardless of pore radius interval partitioning. Trends indicated that soil under conventional tillage had a larger proportion of its pore volume in pores > 15 µm radii compared with soils under conservation tillage. Conservation tilled soils appeared to have a larger portion of pores in the 15- to 0.1-µm pore radius interval. Implications are that conventionally tilled soils should drain more rapidly than conservation tilled soils and that conservation tilled soils should retain more plant available water than conventionally tilled soils. The data indicate that bulk density increases occurred at the expense of larger pores (>150-µm radii). Because conventionally tilled soils have the greater proportion of large pores, these soils seem to be more susceptible to densification than the soils under the conservation tillage systems.


NOTES

1 Journal Paper no. J-11626 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Econ. Exp. Stn., Ames, IA. Project no. 2462.

2 Former Research Associate, Assistant Professor, and Associate Professor, respectively, Dep. of Agronomy, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011. Present address of senior author is Dep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

Received for publication October 1, 1984. Accepted for publication May 13, 1985.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
P. Jiang, S. H. Anderson, N. R. Kitchen, E. J. Sadler, and K. A. Sudduth
Landscape and Conservation Management Effects on Hydraulic Properties of a Claypan-Soil Toposequence
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., April 5, 2007; 71(3): 803 - 811.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Environ. Qual.Home page
G. Yoo, T. M. Nissen, and M. M. Wander
Use of physical properties to predict the effects of tillage practices on organic matter dynamics in three illinois soils.
J. Environ. Qual., July 1, 2006; 35(4): 1576 - 1583.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
T. Moroizumi and H. Horino
Tillage Effects on Subsurface Drainage
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., July 1, 2004; 68(4): 1138 - 1144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
A. Rachman, S. H. Anderson, C. J. Gantzer, and E. E. Alberts
Soil Hydraulic Properties Influenced by Stiff-Stemmed Grass Hedge Systems
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., July 1, 2004; 68(4): 1386 - 1393.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 1985 by the Soil Science Society of America.