The Usefulness of Soil Penetration Resistance Measurements for Improving the Efficiency of Cultivation Technologies
<p>Measurement preparation stages, leveling of loosened soil (<b>a</b>), compaction with a roller (<b>b</b>) and soil compaction measurements (<b>c</b>).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Changes in penetration resistance of soil with moisture of 7.64% at individual depths, measured with probes with K30 (<b>a</b>) and K60 (<b>b</b>) cones at three levels of soil compaction.</p> "> Figure 2 Cont.
<p>Changes in penetration resistance of soil with moisture of 7.64% at individual depths, measured with probes with K30 (<b>a</b>) and K60 (<b>b</b>) cones at three levels of soil compaction.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Changes in penetration resistance of soil with moisture of 10.4% at individual depths, measured with cone probes with an opening angle of 30° (<b>a</b>) and 60° (<b>b</b>), at three levels of soil compaction.</p> "> Figure 3 Cont.
<p>Changes in penetration resistance of soil with moisture of 10.4% at individual depths, measured with cone probes with an opening angle of 30° (<b>a</b>) and 60° (<b>b</b>), at three levels of soil compaction.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Changes in average penetration resistance of soil with moisture of 7.64% at three levels of its density, measured with probes with cone opening angle of 30° (<b>a</b>) and 60° (<b>b</b>).</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Changes in the average soil compaction with a moisture content of 10.4% at three levels of its compaction measured with probes with a cone with an opening angle of 30° (<b>a</b>) and 60° (<b>b</b>).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hamza, M.A.; Anderson, W.K. Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil. Till Res. 2005, 82, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schjønning, P.; van den Akker, J.J.; Keller, T.; Greve, M.H.; Lamandé, M.; Simojoki, A.; Breuning-Madsen, H. Driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) analysis and risk assessment for soil compaction—A European perspective. Adv. Agron. 2015, 133, 183–237. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, R.J.; Spoor, G.; Thomasson, A.J. Vulnerability of subsoils in Europe to compaction: A preliminary analysis. Soil. Till Res. 2003, 73, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, T.; Colombi, T.; Ruiz, S.; Manalili, M.P.; Rek, J.; Stadelmann, V.; Or, D. Long-term soil structure observatory for monitoring post-compaction evolution of soil structure. Vadose Zone J. 2017, 16, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pabin, J. Przyczyny powstawania i sposoby zapobiegania fizycznej degradacji gleb. Postępy Nauk. Rol. 2004, 51, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
- Atwell, B.J. Response of root to mechanical impedance. Env. Exp. Bot. 1993, 33, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckman, H.C.; Brady, N.C. Soil and Its Properties; PWRiL: Warsaw, Poland, 1971; p. 529. [Google Scholar]
- Jabłoński, B. General Growing of Roles and Plants, 2nd ed.; PWRil: Warsaw, Poland, 1982; p. 498. [Google Scholar]
- Passioura, J.B. Soil conditions and plant growth. Plant Cell Env. 2002, 25, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmore, A.P.; Whalley, W.R. Physical effects of soil drying on roots and crop growth. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 2845–2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bengough, A.G.; McKenzie, B.M.; Hallett, P.D.; Valentine, T.A. Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: A review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nosalewicz, A.; Lipiec, J. The effect of compacted soil layers on vertical root distribution and water uptake by wheat. Plant Soil. 2014, 375, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombi, T.; Kirchgessner, N.; Walter, A.; Keller, T. Root tip shape governs root elongation rate under increased soil strength. Plant Physiol. 2017, 174, 2289–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, H.M.; Roberson, G.M.; Parker, J.J. Soil strength–root penetration relations for medium coarse-textured soil materials. Soil. Sci. 1966, 102, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beylich, A.; Oberholzer, H.R.; Schrader, S.; Höper, H.; Wilke, B.M. Evaluation of soil compaction effects on soil biota and soil biological processes in soils. Soil. Till Res. 2010, 109, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchter, B.; Hausler, S.; Schulin, R.; Weisskopf, P.; Tobias, S. Definition und Erfassung von Bodenschadverdichtungen Positionspapier der BGS-Plattform Bodenschutz. BGS Dok. 2004, 13, 56. [Google Scholar]
- Farias, N.E. Physical of Soils; Editorial Trillas: Mexico City, Mexico, 1994; p. 287. [Google Scholar]
- Buliński, J. Soil Compaction in Various Technologies and Related Plowing Resistance; SGGW, Scientific dissertations and monographs: Warsaw, Poland, 1998; p. 140. [Google Scholar]
- Dexter, A.; Zoebisch, M. Degradation: Critical Limits of Soil Properties and Irreversible Degradation. In Encyclopedia of Soil Science, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Abrahám, R.; Majdan, R.; Kollárová, K.; Tkáč, Z.; Hajdu, Š.; Kubík, Ľ.; Masarovičová, S. Fatigue analysis of spike segment of special tractor wheels in terms of design improvement for Chernozem Soil. Agriculture 2022, 12, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baranowski, R. The effect of soil density on its agrophysical properties. Rocz. Glebozn. 1980, 31, 18. [Google Scholar]
- Dexter, A.R.; Czyż, E.A.; Gate, O.P. A Method for Prediction of Soil Penetration Resistance. Soil. Til. Res. 2007, 93, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lejman, K.; Owsiak, Z. Penetrometric method of density distribution in the soil profile. Inżynieria Rol. 2001, 1, 189–195. [Google Scholar]
- Buliński, J.; Niemczyk, H. Assessment of border effect in wheat cultivation with tramlines. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. SGGW Agric. 2015, 65, 21–30. [Google Scholar]
- Buliński, J.; Niemczyk, H. Changes in some physical properties of soil during vegetation period of winter rape. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. SGGW Agric. 2009, 53, 5–11. [Google Scholar]
- Buliński, J.; Sergiel, L. Effect of moisture content on soil density—Compaction relation during soil compacting in the soil bin. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. SGGW Agric. 2014, 64, 5–14. [Google Scholar]
- Perumpral, J.V. Cone penetrometer applications—A review. Trans. ASABE 1987, 30, 939–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powałka, M.; Buliński, J. Effect of compacting soil on changes in its strength. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. SGGW Agric. 2014, 63, 5–14. [Google Scholar]
- Medvedev, V.V. Soil penetration resistance and penetrographs in studies of tillage technologies. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2009, 42, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Souza, R.; Hartzell, S.; Ferraz, A.P.F.; de Almeida, A.Q.; de Sousa Lima, J.R.; Antonino, A.C.D.; de Souza, E.S. Dynamics of soil penetration resistance in water-controlled environments. Soil. Til. Res. 2021, 205, 104768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serafim, M.E.; Vitorino, A.C.T.; de Souza, C.M.A.; do Prado, E.D.; Venturin, J.C.; Yamamoto, N.T. Desenvolvimento de um penetrógrafo eletromecânico de bancada. Rev. Ciên Téc Agropecuárias 2008, 17, 61–65. [Google Scholar]
- Idkowiak, M.; Kordas, L. Effect of soil tillage and nitrogen fertilization on changes in soil physical properties in winter triticale cultivation. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie Skłodowska Lub. Pol. 2004, 59, 1097–1104. [Google Scholar]
- Fountas, S.; Paraforos, D.; Cavalaris, C.; Karamoutis, C.A.; Gemtos, T.; Abu-Khalaf, N.; Tagarakis, A. A five-point penetrometer with GPS for measuring soil compaction variability. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2013, 96, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sudduth, K.A.; Hummel, J.W.; Drummond, S.T. Comparison of the Veris Profiler 3000 to an ASAE−Standard Penetrometer. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2004, 20, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cviklovič, V.; Mojžiš, M.; Majdan, R.; Kollárová, K.; Tkáč, Z.; Abrahám, R.; Masarovičová, S. Data acquisition system for on-the-go soil resistance force sensor using soil cut-ting blades. Sensors 2022, 22, 5301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klonowski, J.; Buliński, J. Influence of geometrical penetrometer cone dimensions onto ridings in soil compaction measurements. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. SGGW Agric. 2016, 67, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
- Klonowski, J.; Buliński, J. Impact of soil density on readings of cone penetrometers in soil compaction measurements. Ann. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. SGGW Agric. 2016, 68, 7–20. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Janobi, A.; Eldin, A.M. Development of a soil bin test facility for soil tillage tool interaction studies. Res. Bull. Agric. Res. Cent. King Saud Univ. 1997, 72, 5e26. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, G.; Araya, K. Improvement of Whitish Oasis Soil, Part 2: Preliminary Soil Bin Experiments with a Four-stage Subsoil Inverting Plough. Biosyst. Eng. 2003, 85, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchini, A.; Magalhães, P.S.G. Evaluation of coulters for cutting sugar cane residue in a soil bin. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 100, 370–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosa, U.A.; Wulfsohn, D. Soil bin monorail for high-speed testing of narrow tillage tools. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 99, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradford, J.M. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods. In Penetrability; American Society of Agronomy Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; Volume 5, pp. 463–478. [Google Scholar]
- ASABE. Soil Cone Penetrometer; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: Saint Joseph, MI, USA, 2006; pp. 902–904, (ASABE standard: ASAE S313.3 FEB04). [Google Scholar]
- Hernandez-Ramirez, G.; Lawrence-Smith, E.J.; Sinton, S.M.; Tabley, F.; Schwen, A.; Beare, M.H.; Brown, H.E. Root Responses to Alterations in Macroporosity and Penetrability in a Silt Loam Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2014, 78, 1392–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alameda, D.; Villar, R. Moderate soil compaction: Implications on growth and architecture in seedlings of 17 woody plant species. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 103, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alameda, D.; Anten, N.P.R.; Villar, R. Soil compaction effects on growth and root traits of tobacco depend on light, water regime and mechanical stress. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 120, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arvidsson, J.; Bölenius, E.; Cavalieri, K.M.V. Effects of compaction during drilling on yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Eur. J. Agron. 2012, 39, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nevens, F.; Reheul, D. The consequences of wheel-induced soil compaction and subsoiling for silage maize on a sandy loam soil in Belgium. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 70, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misra, R.K.; Li, F.D. The effects of radial soil confinement and probe diameter on penetrometer resistance. Soil Tillage Res. 1996, 38, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moraes, M.T.D.; Silva, V.R.D.; Zwirtes, A.L.; Carlesso, R. Use of penetrometers in agriculture: A review. Eng. Agric. 2014, 34, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, W.R. Influence of compaction hardening of soil on penetration resistance. Trans. ASAE 1986, 11, 741–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowatzki, E.A.; Karafiath, L.L. Effect of cone angle on penetration resistance. Highw. Res. Rec. 1972, 405, 51–59. [Google Scholar]
- Voorhees, W.B.; Farrell, S.A.; Larson, W.E. Soil strength and aeration effects on root elongation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Pro. 1975, 39, 948–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koolen, A.J.; Vaandragen, P. Relationships between soil mechanical properties. J. Agric. En. Res. 1984, 29, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whiteley, G.M.; Dexter, A.R. The dependence of soil penetrometer pressure on penetrometer size. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1981, 26, 467–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bengough, A.G.; Mullins, C.E. Mechanical impedance to root growth: A review of experimental techniques and root growth responses. J. Soil Sci. 1990, 41, 341–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junior, D.D.V.; Biachini, A.; Valadão, F.C.A.; Rosa, R.P. Penetration resistance according to penetration rate, cone base size and different soil conditions. Soil Plant Nutr. 2014, 73, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Q.; Cao, M.; Wang, Y.; Wang, J. Estimating Soil Penetration Resistance of Paddy Soils in the Plastic State Using Physical Properties. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayers, P.D.; Perumpral, J.V. Moisture and Density Effect on Cone Index. Trans. ASAE 1982, 25, 1169–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaz, C.M.; Bassoi, L.H.; Hopmans, J.W. Contribution of water content and bulk density to field soil penetration resistance as measured by a combined cone penetrometer–TDR probe. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 60, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canarache, A. Factors and indices regarding excessive compactness of agricultural soil. Soil Tillage Res. 1991, 19, 145–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bengough, A.G.; Campbell, D.J.; O’Sullivan, M.F. Penetrometer techniques in relation to soil compaction and root growth. In Soil and Environmental Analysis, 2nd ed.; Smith, K.A., Mullins, C.E., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayedahmed, A. Modeling and correlation of soil cone index for bulk density, moisture content and penetration depth levels in a sandy loam soil. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2015, 6, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaz, C.M.; Manieri, J.M.; De Maria, I.C.; Tuller, M. Modeling and correction of soil penetration resistance for varying soil water content. Geoderma 2011, 166, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Upadhyaya, S.K.; Kemble, L.J.; Collins, N.E. Cone index prediction equations for Delaware soils. Trans. ASAE 1982, 82, 1452–1456. [Google Scholar]
- Ohu, J.O.; Raghavan, G.S.V.; McKyes, E. Cone index prediction of compacted soils. Trans. ASAE 1988, 31, 306–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ley, G.J.; Mullins, C.E.; Lal, R. Effects of soil properties on the strength of weak structured tropical soils. Soil Tillage Res. 1993, 28, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameters | Values |
---|---|
Soil type | Fine loamy soil |
Clay content (<0.002 mm) (%) | 2 |
Silt content (0.002–0.05 mm) (%) | 36 |
Sand content (>0.05 mm) (%) | 62 |
Probe | The Surface Area of the Base of the Cone [cm2] | Diameter of Cone Base [mm] | Apex Angle | |
---|---|---|---|---|
30° (K30) | 60° (K60) | |||
Lateral Surface [mm2] | Lateral Surface [mm2] | |||
S1 | 1.0 | 11.28 | 386.1 | 199.9 |
S2 | 2.0 | 15.96 | 773.0 | 400.1 |
S3 | 3.33 | 20.60 | 1287.7 | 666.6 |
S5 | 5.0 | 25.23 | 1931.6 | 999.1 |
Source of Variability | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | Femp. | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Density of soil, G | 0.7385 | 2 | 0.36925 | 44.95 a/ | <0.0001 |
Moisture content, W | 0.0000726 | 1 | 0.0000726 | 0.01 | 0.9251 |
Cone opening angle, K | 1.1333 | 1 | 1.1333 | 137.97 a/ | <0.0001 |
Surface area of the base of cone, S | 1.7545 | 3 | 0.5848 | 71.20 a/ | <0.0001 |
Residue | 7.8199 | 952 | 0.0082 | ||
Total | 11.4463 | 959 |
Factor | Mean soil Compaction [MPa] | Contrast | Calculation Difference | Limit Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Soil density, G [g∙cm−3] | 1.37 | 0.3286 | 1.37–1.43 | * −0.0408 | 0.0168 |
1.40 | 0.3696 | 1.37–1.5 | * −0.0674 | ||
1.51 | 0.3961 | 1.43–1.5 | * −0.0266 | ||
Cone apex angle K, [°] | 30 | 0.3304 | 30–60 | * −0.0687 | 0.0115 |
60 | 0.3991 | ||||
Surface area of the base of cone S, [cm2] | 1 | 0.4237 | 1–2 | * 0.0418 | 0.0213 |
1–3.33 | * 0.0789 | ||||
1–5 | * 0.1151 | ||||
2 | 0.3818 | 2–3.33 | * 0.0371 | ||
2–5 | * 0.0732 | ||||
3.33 | 0.3448 | 3.33–5 | * 0.0362 | ||
5 | 0.3086 |
Measurement Variant | S3_K60 | S5_K60 | S2_K60 | S1_K30 | S2_K30 | S1_K60 | S3_K30 | SK_30 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient of variation [%] | 19.5 | 19.9 | 20.1 | 21.4 | 22.8 | 23.9 | 24.9 | 27.1 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Klonowski, J.; Lisowski, A.; Dąbrowska, M.; Chlebowski, J.; Sypuła, M.; Zychowicz, W. The Usefulness of Soil Penetration Resistance Measurements for Improving the Efficiency of Cultivation Technologies. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166962
Klonowski J, Lisowski A, Dąbrowska M, Chlebowski J, Sypuła M, Zychowicz W. The Usefulness of Soil Penetration Resistance Measurements for Improving the Efficiency of Cultivation Technologies. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):6962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166962
Chicago/Turabian StyleKlonowski, Jacek, Aleksander Lisowski, Magdalena Dąbrowska, Jarosław Chlebowski, Michał Sypuła, and Witold Zychowicz. 2024. "The Usefulness of Soil Penetration Resistance Measurements for Improving the Efficiency of Cultivation Technologies" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 6962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166962