News

a.z
Ghafari, H., Nekoeimehr, M., Farzan, M. (2012). Studying Tillage Effects on Physical Factors Affecting Plant Growth Using LLWR Index. , 26(3), 269-276. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2012.126405
H. Ghafari; M. Nekoeimehr; M. Farzan. "Studying Tillage Effects on Physical Factors Affecting Plant Growth Using LLWR Index". , 26, 3, 2012, 269-276. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2012.126405
Ghafari, H., Nekoeimehr, M., Farzan, M. (2012). 'Studying Tillage Effects on Physical Factors Affecting Plant Growth Using LLWR Index', , 26(3), pp. 269-276. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2012.126405
Ghafari, H., Nekoeimehr, M., Farzan, M. Studying Tillage Effects on Physical Factors Affecting Plant Growth Using LLWR Index. , 2012; 26(3): 269-276. doi: 10.22092/ijsr.2012.126405

Studying Tillage Effects on Physical Factors Affecting Plant Growth Using LLWR Index

پژوهش های خاک
Volume 26, Issue 3, December 2022, Pages 269-276    PDF (350.62 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.22092/ijsr.2012.126405
Authors
H. Ghafari* 1; M. Nekoeimehr2; M. Farzan2
1Former Graduate Student, Tabriz University of Agriculture. Soil Science Department
2Faculty member of Agriculture and Natural Resources Research Center of Chahar Mahal & Bakhtiari
Abstract
Plant growth is directly affected by soil water, soil aeration, and soil resistance to root penetration. Least limiting water range (LLWR), a proposed soil structural quality index, is the range of soil water content at  which plant growth is least limited by water potential, aeration, and soil mechanical resistance. In this study, the effect of tillage on the physical factors controlling plant growth in the LLWR index was investigated. Sixty undisturbed soil samples were collected from two contiguous fields cultivated by no-tillage and conventional tillage. Then, soil water retention curve, soil resistance curve, and bulk density were determined.  The results showed that in conventional tillage system LLWR was significantly higher (P <0.01). In no-tillage system, θSR (soil moisture equivalent to 2 MPa penetration resistance) was the lower limit of LLWR in 63% of the samples and replaced θPWP (soil moisture at permanent wilting point), while this value was 53% in conventional tillage.
Keywords
Soil resistance; Least limiting water range; Soil water curve
References
  1. برزگر، ع.ر.1380، الف. فیزیک خاک پیشرفته.انتشارات دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز.
  2. Benjamin, J. G., Nielsen, D. C. and Vigil, M. F. (2003). Quantifying effects of soilconditions on plant growth and crop production. Geoderma. 116: 137–148.
  3. Busscher, W. J. (1990). Adjustment of flat-tipped penetrometer resistance data to common water content. American Society Agricultural Engineers. 3: 519-524.
  4. Camp, C.R. and Gill. W. R. (1969). The effect of drying on soil strength parameters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 33: 519-524
  5. Carter, M. R. (1988). Temporal variability of soil macroporosity in a fine sandy loam under moldboard ploughing and direct drilling. Soil Tillage Research. 12: 37-51.
  6. Da Silva, A. P. and Kay, B. D. (1997). Estimating least limiting water range ofsoils from properties and management. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 61: 877–883.
  7. Da Silva, A. P., Kay, B. D. and Perfect, E. (1994). Characterization of the least limiting water range of soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 58: 1775–1781.
  8. Dexter, A. R. (1987). Mechanics of root growth. Plant Soil 98: 303–312.
  9. Dexter, A.R., Horn, R., Kemper, W.D., 1988. Two mechanisms for age-hardening of soil. J. Soil Sci. 39, 163-175.
  10. Gupta, S. C. and Larson, W. E. (1979). Estimating soil water characteristics from size distribution, organic carbon and bulk density. Water Resources Res. 15: 1633-1635.
  11. Haise, H. R., Haas, H. J. and Jensen, L. R., (1955). Soil moisture studies of some Great Plains soils. II. Field capacity as related to 1/3-atmosphere percentage, and minimum point as related to 15- and 26-atmosphere percentage. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. 19: 20-25.
  12. Hill, R.L., 1990. Long-term conventional and no-till effects on selected soil physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 161-166.
  13. Kemper, W.D., Rosenau, R.C., 1984. Soil cohesion as affected by time and water content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48, 1001-1006.
  14. Klute, A. (1986). Water retention: laboratory methods. 635– 662.In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1. 2nd ed.Physical and Mineralogical Methods,. Agron. Monogr., vol. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
  15. Leao, T. P. and Da Silva, A. P. (2004). A simplified excel® algorithm for estimatingthe least limiting water range of Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.). 61: 649-654
  16. Letey, J. (1985). Relationship between soil physical properties and crop production. Adv. Soil Sci. 1: 276– 294.
  17. McCoy, E.L., Cardina, J., 1997. Characterizing the structure of undisturbed soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 280-286.
  18. Reinert Dalvan, J., Wolkowski Richard, P., Lowery, B. and Arriaga Farancisco, J. (2002). Compaction effects on least limiting water range and plant growth. 17th WCSS, 14-21 August, Thailand.
  19. Richards, L. A. and Weaver, L. R. (1944). Fifteen-atmosphere percentage as related to the permanent wilting point. Soil Sci. 56: 331–339.
  20. Semmel, H., Horn, R., Hell, U., Dexter, A.R., Schulze, E.D., 1990. The dynamics of soil aggregate formation and the effect on soil physical properties. Soil Technol. 3, 113-129.
  21. Smedemma, L. K. (1993). Drainage performance and soil management. Soil Technol. 6: 183-189.
  22. Taylor H. M., Roberson G. M., Parker J.J. 1966. Soil strength– root penetration relations for medium to coarse-textured soil materials. Soil Science. 102: 18– 22.
  23. Topp, G. C., Galganov, Y. T., Wires, K. C. and Culley, J. L. B. (1994). Nonlimiting water range (NLWR): an approach for assessing soil structure. In: Soil Quality Evaluation Program Tech. Rep. 2. Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa,Ont.
  24. Tormena, C. A., da Silva, A. P. and Libardi, P. L. (1999). Soil physical quality of Brazilian Oxisol under two tillage systems using the least limiting waterrange approach. Soil Till. Res. 52: 223–232.
  25. Van den Berg, M., Klamt, E., Van Reuwijk, L. P. and Sombroek, W. G. (1997). Pedotransfers functions for the estimation of moistureretention characteristics of Ferralsols and related soils. Geoderma. 78: 161-180.
  26. Wu, L., Feng, G., Letey, J., Ferguson, L., Mitchell, J., Mccullough-Sanden, B. and Markegard, G. (2003). Soil management effects on the nonlimiting water range. Geoderma. 114: 401– 414.
  27. Zou, G., Sands, R., Buchan, G. And Hudson, I. (2000). Least limiting water range: A potential indicator of soil physical quality of forest soil. Aust. J. Soil Res. 38: 947-958.
Statistics
Article View: 442
PDF Download: 263


counter
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb