Is Structural Quality as Assessed by the "Profil Cultural" Method Related to Quantitative Indicators of Soil Physical Quality?

Abstract

Soil and crop management systems change the soil structure, thereby affecting soil quality. The "profil cultural" method (PCM) has been used to identify the effects of management systems on soil structure; however, few studies relate the structures identified by the PCM to quantitative indicators of soil structural quality. This study aimed to quantify soil structures using the PCM and relate these structures to bulk density (Bd), critical bulk density (Bdc), soil aeration capacity (ε a ), least limiting water range (LLWR), and soil air permeability (K a ) under different soil and crop management systems. The study was developed in a long-term experiment (24 years) involving two systems of soil management (no-tillage and conventional tillage) and two systems of crop management (rotation and succession), resulting in four treatments: no-tillage with crop rotation (NTr), no-tillage with crop succession (NTs), conventional tillage with heavy harrowing and crop rotation (CTr) and conventional tillage with heavy harrowing and crop succession (CTs). The PCM was used to identify the different homogeneous morphological units (HMUs) in the soil profile. Undisturbed soil samples were collected for the HMUs that were most represented in the profiles to determine K a , LLWR, Bd, and ε a . ). The proportion of samples where Bd > Bdc was 23 % under CTs, 77 % under CTr, 32 % under NTs, and 39 % under NTr. The structures that were most restrictive to root development (CΔ, CΔμ, FmtΔμ, and FmtμΔ) show a lower K a and greater soil penetration resistance as the soil dries. Pores are more continuous and the structure is less restrictive to plant development in no-tillage than in conventional tillage.

Is just considering texture enough to define compaction on the basis of soil density?

“…These results are in accord with Possamai et al (2022), Silva et al (1997) For comparison of bulk density in (CT) and (MT) management, Figures 4 and 5 showed a value lower than 1.39 Mg m -3 for CT, the "overall effect" is -0.02 ± 0.01, indicating an interval of values between 1,36-1,38 Mg m -3 and MT the "overall effect" is equal to -0.07 ± 0.01, indicating an interval of values between 1,31-1,33 Mg m -3 . These results are in accord with, Reichert et al (2009), Portella et al (2012), Giarola et al (2013), Guimarães et al (2013), Tavares et al (2014), Moncada et al (2014), Carducci et al (2017), Boizard et al (2017), Macedo et al (2017), Watanabe et al (2018), Inagaki et al (2021). 1,36-1,38 Mg m and MT the "overall effect" is equal to -0.07 ± 0.01, indicating an interval of values between 1,31-1,33 Mg m -3 .…”

“…1,36-1,38 Mg m and MT the "overall effect" is equal to -0.07 ± 0.01, indicating an interval of values between 1,31-1,33 Mg m -3 . These results are in accord with, Reichert et al (2009), Portella et al (2012), Giarola et al (2013), Guimarães et al (2013), Tavares et al (2014), Moncada et al (2014), Carducci et al (2017), Boizard et al (2017), Macedo et al (2017), Watanabe et al (2018), Inagaki et al (2021). These results indicate that soil density is a dynamic property that varies with the structural conditions of the crop soil (Bauder et al, 1981;Jones, 1983), according to soil texture and the type of management adopted.…”

“…For NT management, the density values showed that the lack of preparation added to the traffic of seeding machines increases its density. This is probably, due to inadequate management practices such as overloading due to machine traffic in wet soil and lack of crop rotation, which were associated with notillage, favored soil compaction, and increased soil density (Silva et al, 1997;Neves et al, 2003;Portella et al, 2012;Giarola et al, 2013;Guimarães et al, 2013;Tavares & Tessier, 2009;Tavares et al, 2010Tavares et al, , 2014Moncada et al, 2014;Carducci et al, 2017;Boizard et al, 2017;Macedo et al, 2017;Watanabe et al, 2018; These results indicate that soil density is a dynamic property that varies with the structural conditions of the crop soil (Bauder et al, 1981;Jones, 1983), according to soil texture and the type of management adopted. For the considered management in clayey Oxisol, it is then possible to defining bulk density indicating compaction in these soils, in management that minimizes soil manipulation (P and NT), bulk densities between 1.41-1.45 Mg.m -3 (average 1, 43 Mg m -3 ), and for management no that minimizes soil manipulation (CT and MT), bulk densities between 1.31-1.38 Mg.m -3 (average 1, 35 Mg m -3 ).…”

“…For example, for clayey soils, the most common values cited in the literature are 1.40 Mg m -3 (Arshad et al, 1996), 1.30 to 1.40 Mg m -3 (Reichert et al, 2009), 1.30 to 1.43 Mg m -3 (Bhuyan et al, 2022) and 1.47 Mg m -3 (USDA Department of Agriculture, 2014). However, research that used the cultural profile methodology (Tavares et al, 1999;Boizard et al, 2017), in clay soils under diverse cultures and management (Neves et al, 2003;Portella et al, 2012;Tavares & Tessier, 2009;Tavares et al, 2010Tavares et al, , 2012Tavares et al, , 2014Macedo et al, 2017;Watanabe et al, 2018) found different bulk density values for the same structural classification within the same soil profile analyzed according to the considered management.…”

Soil morphostructural characterization and coffee root distribution under agroforestry system with Hevea Brasiliensis

“…Likewise, Guimarães et al (2014) observed higher PR in open-grown coffee than in shaded coffee areas. Our findings agree with Watanabe et al (2018) andTavares Filho et al (2012) in the same soil type and under a no-till system, in Londrina, Paraná State (Brazil).…”