Factors governing soil water repellency under tillage management: the role of pore structure and hydrophobic substances

Li, Shengping; Lu, Jin‐Jian; Degré, A.

doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-20719

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 71 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1) because ethanol is a nonpolar liquid and Se is only affected by soil pore structure (Tadayonnejad et al, 2017;Tillman et al, 1989). In addition, we used X-ray computed tomography under two long-term experimental fields and found that RT treatment increased the soil porosity of 55-165 μm and pore connectivity compared to NT treatment in our previous study (Li et al, 2021). Therefore, RT treatment increased Se and Sw compared to NT treatment (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…The Sw is affected by both soil pore structure and hydrophobic substances (Hallett et Li et al, 2021). We found that NT treatment decreased Sw at the 0-5 cm, 5-10 cm, and 10-20 cm depths compared to CT treatment during the three growth periods (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…This suggested that the ability of soil water absorption was not only affected by the degree of soil water repellency as indicated by RI. The main reason is that RT treatment improved soil pore structure and water transmission (Gao et al, 2019;Li et al, 2021;Sauwa et al, 2013), which attenuated the effect of the increase in RI on soil water absorption.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Undisturbed soil samples were air-dried for 2 weeks to a constant weight (approximately 2.3% moisture) and then a micro infiltration device was applied for measuring SWR (Hallett and Young, 1999). Detailed information about the device can be found in Li et al (2021). One end of a tube in the infiltration device was linked with a liquid reservoir and the other end with a 4 mm diameter was a sponge-covered tip in contact with the soil sample.…”

Section: The Characteristics Of Soil Water Repellencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, our previous study had studied the factors governing SWR under conservation tillage and further pointed out that it was essential to study the impact of SWR on grain yield in the future because SWR could influence soil water status (Li et al, 2021). In this study, a long-term field experiment (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018) with continuous spring maize was conducted to fill the knowledge gap that, to the best of our knowledge, few studies have (i) revealed the relationship between SWR and soil water availability and (ii) assessed the effect of SWR on grain yield via changes in soil water availability under conservation tillage practices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Soil water repellency influences maize yield by changing soil water availability under long-term tillage management

Liang

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Drought is increasingly common due to frequent occurrences of extreme weather events, which further increases soil water repellency (SWR) and influences grain yield. Conservation agriculture is playing a vital role in attaining high food security and it could also increase SWR. However, the relationship between SWR and grain yield under conservation agriculture is still not fully understood. We studied the impact of SWR in 0–5 cm, 5–10 cm, and 10–20 cm layers during three growth periods on grain yield from a soil water availability perspective using a long-term field experiment. In particular, we assessed the effect of SWR on soil water content under two rainfall events with different rainfall intensities. Three treatments were conducted: conventional tillage (CT), reduced tillage (RT), and no-tillage (NT). The results showed that the water repellency index (RI) of NT and RT treatments in 0–20 cm layers was increased by 12.9 %–39.9 % and 5.7 %–18.2 % compared to CT treatment during the three growth periods, respectively. The effect of the RI on soil water content became more obvious with the decrease in soil moisture following rainfall, which was also influenced by rainfall intensity. The RI played a prominent role in increasing soil water storage during the three growth periods compared to the soil total porosity, penetration resistance, mean weight diameter, and organic carbon content. Furthermore, although the increment in the RI under NT treatment increased the soil water storage, grain yield was not influenced by RI (p > 0.05) because the grain yield under NT treatment was mainly driven by penetration resistance and least limiting water range (LLWR). The higher water sorptivity increased LLWR and water use efficiency, which further increased the grain yield under RT treatment. Overall, SWR, which was characterized by water sorptivity and RI, had the potential to influence grain yield by changing soil water availability (e.g. LLWR and soil water storage) and RT treatment was the most effective tillage management compared to CT and NT treatments in improving grain yield.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Characteristics Of Soil Water Repellencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Soil water repellency influences maize yield by changing soil water availability under long-term tillage management

Liang

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Nitrogen addition mediates the effect of soil microbial diversity on microbial carbon use efficiency under long‐term tillage practices

Zhang

et al. 2022

Land Degrad Dev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tillage practices can influence soil microbial carbon use efficiency (CUE), which is critical for carbon cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. The effect of tillage practices could also be regulated by nitrogen (N) addition. However, the soil microbial mechanism relating to N fertilizer effect on microbial CUE under no‐tillage (zero‐tillage) is still unclear. We investigated how N fertilizer regulates the effect of tillage management on microbial CUE through changing microbial properties and further assessed the impact of microbial CUE on particulate (POC) and mineral‐associated organic matter carbon (MAOC). For this we used a 16‐year field experiment with no‐tillage (NT) and conventional tillage (CT), both of which combined with 105 (N1), 180 (N2), and 210 kg N ha−1 (N3) N application. We found that microbial CUE increased with increasing N application rate. NT increased microbial CUE compared with CT in the 0–10 cm. The bacterial and fungal diversities of NT were higher than CT and N application decreased their diversities in 0–10 cm. The partial least squares path model showed that bacterial and fungal diversity had a significant influence on microbial CUE. Furthermore, POC and MAOC under NT were higher than CT and they also increased with increasing N application rate. It suggested that increasing microbial CUE induced by N application had the potential to increase POC and MAOC. Overall, this study highlights that N addition can alter the effect of soil microbial diversity on CUE, which further improves our understanding to explain and predict the fractions of SOC (i.e., POC and MAOC) in tillage systems.

show abstract

Implications of crop residue removal on soil physical properties: A review

Klopp

Blanco‐Canqui

2022

Soil Science Soc of Amer J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop residues are often removed for livestock and biofuel production, but how such removal impacts soil physical properties has not been widely discussed. The objectives of this paper were to discuss: (a) the impacts of crop residue removal on soil physical properties, (b) factors affecting residue removal effects on soils, (c) threshold level of residue removal, (d) strategies to offset the removal negative effects, and (e) research needs. We compiled 66 studies on crop residue removal and soil physical properties published prior to 17 Aug. 2021. Residue removal may not affect bulk density and water infiltration rate but increases penetration resistance by 55% and soil temperature by 1.8 ˚C in spring. However, it reduces wet aggregate stability by 31%, dry aggregate stability by 44%, and water retention at -33 kPa by 24% in most studies, indicating residue removal can increase erosion risks and reduce soil water storage. Residue removal rate is the leading factor that explains changes in soil physical properties. Residue removal at rates above 50%, in general, adversely affected soil physical properties, which correlates to retaining about 4 Mg ha -1 of residue. Cover crops and manure application may partially offset adverse effects of residue removal on soil physical properties, but studies are too few to make a strong conclusion. Consistency of soil sampling depths, accurate reporting of residue removal rates, and additional data from long-term experiments are needed. Overall, high rates of residue removal can increase erosion potential and reduce soil water but have mixed impacts on other physical properties.

show abstract

Factors governing soil water repellency under tillage management: the role of pore structure and hydrophobic substances

Cited by 4 publications

References 71 publications

Soil water repellency influences maize yield by changing soil water availability under long-term tillage management

Soil water repellency influences maize yield by changing soil water availability under long-term tillage management

Nitrogen addition mediates the effect of soil microbial diversity on microbial carbon use efficiency under long‐term tillage practices

Implications of crop residue removal on soil physical properties: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About