[go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Governmental Ownership, Board Gender Diversity, and ESG Performance: Evidence from an Emerging Market
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Distribution, Accessibility, and Influencing Factors of the Tourism and Leisure Industry in Qingdao, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 16
10.3390/su16166962
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Usefulness of Soil Penetration Resistance Measurements for Improving the Efficiency of Cultivation Technologies

by
Jacek Klonowski
,
Aleksander Lisowski
,
Magdalena Dąbrowska
*,
Jarosław Chlebowski
,
Michał Sypuła
and
Witold Zychowicz
Department of Biosystems Engineering, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 6962; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166962
Submission received: 18 July 2024 / Revised: 8 August 2024 / Accepted: 12 August 2024 / Published: 14 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<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> ">
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The research results of soil penetration resistance (SPR) tests carried out on sandy clay using four cone probes with different dimensions of the measuring tip are presented in this study. It was indicated that the values of SPR can be used to diagnose the cultivation layer and, on this basis, determine whether it is necessary to cultivate it and select tools for the required treatment. Tests were carried out on three levels of soil density, 1.37, 1.43 and 1.51 g∙cm−3, and two moisture contents, 7.64% and 10.4%. The results show that the probe with the smallest cone with apex angles of 30° and 60° on the least dense soil indicated higher SPR by over 50% more than other probes with the highest cone and the same opening angles. The change in cone opening angle from 30° to 60° led to an increase in probe indications in the range of 10–25%, depending on the diameter of the cone tip. The statistical analysis shows that values of probe indications were statistically significant and were influenced by soil density, probe cone tip dimensions, the surface of the base and the apex angle. The values of SPR are fundamental in diagnosing the quality of the soil’s top layer, determining the necessity of breaking it up, and selecting the optimal tools for this procedure. To improve the efficiency of agricultural crop cultivation technologies. This is particularly important when carrying out cultivation procedures in an environmentally friendly manner. The measurements will help support the introduction of sustainable farming practices, including direct seeding, no-till cultivation, or precision agriculture, reducing soil degradation and increasing environmental benefits.

1. Introduction

In modern agriculture, soil compaction from agricultural activities significantly threatens soil productivity and ecological functions [1,2]. Soil compaction problems are widespread in agriculture that uses heavy tillage equipment, and in Europe, one-third of soils are susceptible to compaction [3]. According to Keller et al. [4], soil susceptibility to compaction combines soil properties, soil moisture during fieldwork, soil management and the machines used.
Society increasingly feels responsible for the environment. It can be noticed that farmers are beginning to examine the cultivated soil, keep an eye on the dates of treatments to limit them to a minimum without incurring additional costs to achieve the planned yield and maintain the health of the plants. This makes it possible to preserve biodiversity in the field and the environment.
Soils are increasingly threatened by factors degrading their value [5]. Proper land management through appropriate cultivation practices allows you to counteract unfavorable changes occurring in the soil.
The main factor of soil degradation is its excessive density [5], a gravimetric feature of the soil and the associated soil penetration resistance, considered a physicochemical and technological feature of the soil.
Soil penetration resistance is a parameter that is commonly used in research studies. This parameter describes the force of links between soil particles and is mainly expressed by the cone index. This is determined by the soil resistance while passing through the tested layer and the size of the base surface area of the cone. This indicator can be helpful in agriculture in evaluating soil mechanical resistance to plant roots by soil layers. On this basis, soil penetration resistance is one of the essential parameters defining crop growth conditions and yield, the development of their root system, access and ability to take nutrients and water [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Other research results [14,15,16] indicate that for most crops, a soil penetration resistance higher than 1.7–2.0 MPa and on clay soils 1.0 MPa [17] is the limit for proper growth. Additionally, as a soil strength parameter, penetration resistance can provide valuable information about its state in real-time, allowing for the proper mechanized fieldwork technology management of the impact of agricultural vehicles on the ground [18], the energy demand of cultivation tools, vehicle traffic possibilities [19] and traction properties in terms of tire–soil interaction [20]. According to Baranowski [21] and Dexter et al. [22], soil penetration resistance is characterized by three main factors—granulometric composition with organic substance content, moisture content and soil density—and there is a need to predict the resistance of the penetrometer based on these three basic properties.
Lejman and Owsiak [23] showed that soil penetration resistance could be linked to its density by a power function with an average absolute error of up to 5%, depending on the method of compaction measurement. These two soil properties are considered descriptions of test conditions of change characteristics caused by the impact of the tools on the soil [24,25,26,27,28].
Measured penetration resistance and soil density are promising indicators of the optimal depth and intensity of tillage treatments, especially in precision agriculture [29].
In research trials, penetrometer cone probes with different cone base sizes and apex angles are used to determine soil compaction [30]. These penetrometers can have different cone angles, ranging from 30 to 60° [31]. They can be rammed [32] or pressed into the soil using several methods (manual or mechanical) at various speeds [23,33,34]. In response to the development of advanced technologies and precision agriculture, Cviklovič et al. [35] proposed a data acquisition system for soil resistance force sensors. This system allows for a real-time assessment of the soil profile
The lack of uniformity in conducting measurements at various conditions of densification and soil moisture content may lead to differences in probe meter indications. Soil penetration resistance results obtained this way can hardly be compared. Research results [36,37] have proven that compaction measurements performed using diversified probes (different sizes of the conical tip), even under the same soil conditions, gave different results. Therefore, the following question arises: what is the real significance of the value of this parameter? With slight differences in plant requirements for soil compaction, the possibility to determine this parameter is essential. This is particularly important in field studies where natural soil variability may be an additional factor influencing the probe indications [38]. Laboratory studies conducted in a soil bin enable a high degree of control of the soil condition, ensuring uniform conditions for the measurement. Many scientific centers have successfully used these laboratory methods [39,40,41].
This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which the base diameter and cone angle of the probe affect its readings during measurements at different soil moisture and density values, and the selection of the appropriate cone size for given soil conditions when determining the SPR, which is important when making decisions on carrying out a cultivation procedure.

2. Materials and Methods

Tests were conducted in a soil bin with dimensions of 10 × 2 × 1 m (length × width × depth). The soil bin was filled with fine, loamy soil with 16.5% content of floating parts. The sandy loam soil used in the study is one of the more versatile soil types because it combines the advantages of sandy and clay soils. It is well drained but can retain enough water and nutrients, making it suitable for many crops. The composition of the soil is shown in Table 1. Test conditions in the soil bin deviate from the natural state in the field; however, they allow repetitive measurements of all probes in equally prepared soil with minimum variability. These conditions were necessary to compare individual probe indications.
Before the tests, the soil was prepared to the appropriate moisture content by loosening and drying or sprinkling, and when it reached the set moisture parameters, each time before the test, the soil in the bin was loosened to a depth of 30 cm. Afterward, the surface was fully leveled and compacted with a 360 kg smooth shaft (Figure 1) moving at a speed of 0.2 m∙s−1 to obtain a tested layer of 0–20 cm with average bulk densities of 1.37, 1.43 and 1.51 g∙cm−3, typical for sandy clay soils. The bulk density was determined by taking samples using an Eijelkelkamp probe equipped with cylinders 100 cm3 in volume from a tested 0–20 cm profile every 5 cm. On this basis, the mean value for the entire profile was determined. After compaction, a rectangular measuring grid of 0.4 × 0.6 m was placed on the soil surface and at the points marked by the grid, and the soil compaction was measured using a conical Penetrologger probe pressed into the soil with a speed of 30 mm·s−1. It was equipped with four interchangeable tips with a cone opening angle of 30° (K30) and four tips with a cone opening angle of 60° (K60). The diameter of the penetrating rod was smaller than the diameter of the cone, which avoided friction between the rod and the soil [42,43]. Measurements for two soil moisture contents, W1 = 7.64% and W2 = 10.4%, typical for agricultural procedures, were conducted. Measurements with each variant (surface area of base x apex angle) were repeated five times. The dimensions of the cones are summarized in Table 2.
The dimensions of the probe are considered in symbols included in the description. For instance, the S1_K30 probe had a cone with a base diameter of 11.28 mm and an apex angle of 30°.
The selection of the most favorable probe size for the soil conditions in which the research was carried out was based on the coefficient of unevenness of the dispersion of the SPR measurement results from the average value for all variants of the experiment.
The results of soil penetration resistance measurements carried out at different soil moisture content and density values were developed statistically using the Statgraphic Plus program with the following packages: analysis of variance (ANOVA Type III Sum of Squares) and comparison of the mean (Multiple Range Tests using Tukey’ method, HSD 95% confidence level).

3. Results

The results of the soil penetration resistance measurements carried out using a probe with cone apex angles of 30° (K30) and 60° (K60) in the soil at 7.64% moisture content (W1) and 10.4% (W2) at three levels of densification, 1.37, 1.43 and 1.51 g∙cm−3 (G1, G2 and G3), are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. These data allow the assessment of different penetration resistances at individual depth levels to diversify soil cultivation.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show that changes in soil penetration resistance were typical for surface kneading, occurring in production fields due to the crossing of tractor aggregates. The highest compaction occurred in the subsurface layer. In deeper layers below 10 cm, there was a systematic decrease in differences in the indications of individual probes. With the increase in soil compaction, the differences in the compactness of the surface layer increased when measured with different probes.
Researchers often use the mean values determined using test conditions in field studies. It is based on the arithmetic mean of the single depth of the layer studied. With a change in soil compaction, maximal values may significantly influence the evaluation of the profile compactness. Hernandez-Ramirez [44] drew attention to the characteristic increased penetration resistance occurring in the compact top layer of soil in no-plow systems and compacted soil caused by intensive machine traffic. Since the highest values of probes are obtained at the beginning of passing a cone through the tested soil layer, the maximum values measured in the layer up to a depth of 10 cm are used for comparison.
By comparing the graphs of changes in soil penetration resistance determined by individual probes (Figure 2 and Figure 3), the inverse relation between the diameter of the cone base and penetration resistance values can be seen. With the same soil conditions, the highest indications were from S1 probes with the smallest surface area of the cone base. The measured values decreased with increased dimensions of the conical tip. With a mean soil density (G2), the maximum soil penetration resistance determined by the S1_K30 probe was greater by 97 kPa to over 138 kPa (average 108 kPa) than values determined by other cones (S2, S3, S5) with the same opening angle. Differences in individual probe indications increased with an increase in the diameter of the cone base. These differences ranged from approximately 17% to 30% at maximum compaction. In measurements at other soil density levels (G1 and G3), the compaction measured with the S1_K30 probe was higher than the values obtained with other probes (S2, S3, S5), averaging 82 kPa.
Increasing the cone opening angle from 30° to 60° (Figure 2b) in all measurements increased the maximum value of the probe indications. The largest increase in compaction was observed in variants with the least compacted soil (G1) of approximately 23% and the smallest, almost by half, on moderately compacted soil (G3) of approximately 10%.
Change in moisture content from 7.64% to 10.4% (Figure 3) caused a decrease in maximal compactions determined using probes with a K30 conical tip (Figure 3a) (from 67 to 175 kPa) mostly on the mean compacted soil (G2). The highest differences in measurement indications were obtained using the S1 probe, and the smallest, using the S5 probe. At other levels of profile densities (G1 and G3), changes in the probes’ indications with increasing moisture content were small and unidirectional.
An increase in soil moisture content also led to a change in the values of the probes with the K60 tip (Figure 3b). These changes are characterized by a considerable spread of value ranges.
In probes with K30 cone measurements (Figure 3a), the inverse relation of the indication values (compaction) and diameter of the cone base were obtained. At the lowest soil density (G1), the maximal soil penetration resistance determined with the S1 probe was higher by 38% than values determined with other cone probes with the same opening angle. The differences in probe indications increase with increased cone base diameter, similar to tests at lower soil moisture content.
Increasing soil density up to 1.43 g∙cm−3 (G2) caused higher indications of the S1 probe in relation to the S2, S3 and S5 probes for the same soil conditions; they ranged from 26% to 45%. At the highest soil density (G3), indications of the S1 probe were higher than other probes by 11% to 47%. There was also an inverse relation between indication values and the diameter of the cone base.
Increasing the cone opening angle from 30° to 60°, at 10.4% soil moisture content (Figure 3b), increased maximal probe indications in the range of 4.6% to 43%. As in tests carried out at lower moisture content, there was a negative correlation between probe indications and the diameter of the cone tip. In all research variants, the S1 probe with the smallest cone had the highest soil penetration resistance measurement for the same measurement conditions.
In describing an experiment in research practice, the measurement results are often based on the mean values expressed by bulk density or compaction [45,46,47,48].
The mean values of soil penetration resistance based on individual probe indications at the moisture content of 7.64% and three levels of compaction are presented in Figure 4. The research results indicate that individual probes react differently to changes in soil density. This confirms earlier observations that measurements of soil penetration resistance for the same soil conditions with conical probes differing in the dimension of the cone tip may provide different premises. In all measurement variants, the mean profile density decreased with an increased cone base diameter.
The graph in Figure 4a shows that for the same soil conditions, the mean soil penetration resistance determined by the S1K30 probe was higher from 12 to 150 kPa than values obtained using other probes. The highest differences in individual probe indications were obtained in the lowest density (G1) soil, and the minor differences, in the 1.51 g∙cm−3 density (G3) soil. The indications are repeated regularly for all variants of probe cones. The highest mean soil compactions were obtained at the density of 1.43 g∙cm−3 (G2), and the lowest, for soil with a 1.37 g∙cm−3 (G1) density. In research on the soil with G1 density, the mean values of soil penetration resistance measured by individual probes (S1–S5) with a K30 cone ranged from 48 to 120 kPa. Values determined from soil with G2 density ranged from 76 to 152 kPa, and from soil with G3 density, from 12 to 70 kPa.
Differences in mean soil penetration resistance for different densities, measured by probes with the 60° (K60) cone, ranged from 30 to 158 kPa, i.e., from 8 to 53% (Figure 4b). The mean soil penetration resistance for different soil densities, measured by probes with K60 cones, were from 10 to 33% (average 20%), i.e., from 38 to 126 kPa (average 65 kPa), which are more significant than indications of probes with K30 cones for the same conditions.
The increase in soil moisture content to 10.4% changed the mean soil compactions (Figure 5). The highest values of soil penetration resistance were obtained at the highest soil density, 1.51 g∙cm−3 (G3). Only probes with the smallest cones (S1) and opening angles of 30° and 60° positively correlated with soil density in the measuring system. In other measuring variants, changes in soil penetration resistance were not targeted in a manner consistent with soil density. The mean soil penetration resistance at a density of 1.43 g∙cm−3 (Figure 5a) determined with S2 and S3 probes was lower by a few percent (11–45 kPa) than compactions determined for less dense soil G1. Similar measurements of the same soil after densification from the G1 level to the G2 level with the S1 probe showed an increase in compaction by 78 kPa.
In most measurement variants, mean soil compactions were negatively correlated with the cone diameter, as was the case for tests on soil with a moisture content of 7.64%. Soil compactions determined by probes with a cone opening angle of 60° (Figure 5b) were approximately 5% to over 48% higher than values obtained using probes with cones of an angle of 30° (on average, approximately 24%, 72 kPa). The highest differences were obtained for soil densities of 1.37 and 1.51 g∙cm−3 (G1 and G3).
The test results were analyzed using a multivariate variance analysis to determine individual factors’ influence on soil penetration resistance in the soil bin. The results are summarized in Table 3.
The results of the analysis show that there are significant differences in the mean values of the compared variables. The test values of soil penetration resistance measurements of probes’ indications show a statistically significant influence of the soil density and dimensions of the probes’ conical tips (especially the surface area of the base of the cone and cone opening angle). However, there was no influence on moisture content, although there is a tendency to increase it with decreasing moisture, which may result from too small differences in the adopted moisture levels.
To investigate significant differences in groups of means influencing the dependent variable, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used to analyze the mean values of soil penetration resistance obtained for individual independent factors (surface area of the base of the cone and cone angle). The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.
Considering the values presented in Table 4, the assumed soil density levels influenced the measured values of soil penetration resistance differentially. All soil penetration resistance group means obtained for each soil density differed statistically significantly. The apex angle of the cone tip (K) in the probe and the cone base (S) also significantly affected the values of soil compaction. The differences for mean groups are also significant. While the result of the soil density analysis in the context of this study can be considered quite natural, observations related to the influence of cone geometric dimensions need actions aimed at assessing measurement data under given soil conditions in terms of the dispersion of SPR values. For this purpose, a statistical analysis was performed, and the results are presented in Table 5.
The coefficient of variation ranged from 19.5 to 27.1%, and its lowest value was obtained for a cone with an apex angle of 60° and a base diameter of 20.6 mm. It follows that under the conditions of the tests, using the S3_K60 probe allows for obtaining the most uniform results.

4. Discussion

The tests carried out in the soil bin conditions show that the penetration resistance values in the topsoil layer (3–6 cm) were the highest. The scatter in soil penetration resistance (SPR) values for the same measurement conditions ranged from 19.5 to 27.1% (Table 5) and could result from the presence of soil structural discontinuities (e.g., pores) or small soil fragments with different compressive properties (lumps), as pointed out by Misra and Li [49]. Changes in soil compaction were typical for surface compaction occurring in production fields as a result of the passage of tractor units. Other authors [44] confirm these results, pointing out the characteristic increased penetration resistance in the compact topsoil layer in no-plow systems and soils compacted by intensive machine traffic.
In agriculture, penetrometers with various cone angles, from 30° to 60°, are used to determine the SPR value [31,50]. In the research conducted by the authors, higher SPR values were obtained for a cone opening angle of 60° than for an angle of 30°. The ASABE standard [43] provides recommended cone opening angles of 30°. This standardization results from the fact that SPR values depend on the cone angle. However, readings obtained for 60° cone angles, with smaller cone base diameters (approximately 4 mm), showed a better SPR correlation with plant root growth [31,50].
The literature indicates that cone opening angles of 30° determine the lowest SPR values concerning larger angles [42,51,52,53,54]. These changes can be explained by the relative distribution of frictional and elastic forces directed along the penetrometer axis as a function of the cone angle. At small angle values, the contribution of friction to the penetration resistance is relatively large. As the angle increases, the share of the elastic deformation force of the soil elements increases.
In hand-held penetrometers according to the ASABE standard [43], the recommended standard diameters for determining SPR values not exceeding 2 MPa (soft soils) are 20.27 mm and 12.83 mm on hard soils with SPR values up to 5 MPa. Our research has shown an inverse relation between the size of the cone base diameter and the value of obtained compaction. Other studies [55,56,57] also observed increased penetration resistance as the penetrometer base surface decreased. Additionally, Whitely and Dexter [55] found that the measured penetration resistance decreased as the inverse square root of the penetrometer base surface increased. However, Misra and Li [49] found that SPR values do not depend on the cone diameter when more significant than 2 mm.
The dependences of SPR on the size of the cone (i.e., opening angle and base diameter) are different based on our results and those of other authors because soil properties also influence SPR values. The proposed cones of various sizes are dedicated to soils with distinct characteristics. Hence, in the context of practical applications, ref. [50] the selection of an appropriate cone should depend on soil conditions and the purpose of measurement. Generally, cones with tighter angles will be better in highly compacted soils to avoid excessive drag, while in looser soils, cones with larger angles may provide more accurate readings.
According to our tests in laboratory conditions, considering the dispersion of individual measurement results from the average SPR for all test variants, it was determined that cones with an opening angle of 60° should be used for such conditions. However, to ensure comparability of test results, it is necessary to calibrate and standardize penetrometers, including cone sizes.
The presented research shows that the main soil factor influencing SPR was soil density because we referred to the density of the wet soil. Therefore, wet soil density influenced SPR, considering both dry density and water content. These studies showed that soil penetration resistance is positively correlated with soil density, and its average values ranged from 0.329 to 0.396 MPa for soil density, which ranged from 1.37 to 1.51 g cm−3.
Similarly, Jiang et al. [58] reported that wet soil density was the main factor positively and linearly related to SPR. In their research, when soil density changed from 1.8 to 2.8 g cm−3, SPR increased accordingly from 23.9 to 77.3 kPa. Ayers and Perumpral [59] showed a significant relation between soil density and SPR for soils with water content below 20%. Furthermore, they showed that when the soil water content was lower than 6.7%, the SPR increased exponentially with dry matter density. When the soil water content was between 8.8% and 11.8%, the SPR tended to increase linearly with density. Similarly, Vaz et al. [60] stated that SPR increases with bulk density at the same water content in the soil, and its influence on SPR decreases with increasing water content. Experiments carried out on various soils by Ayers and Perrumpral [59] clearly showed that PR is directly related to density and inverse to soil water content. These relationships are not linear over a wide range of water content and density.
It can, therefore, be concluded that the dependence of penetrometric resistance on soil density is positive. However, as Canarache [61] states, it is modified by soil moisture, and at higher moisture content, the effect of density on soil cohesion is small [62].
The literature data show that the water content also influences the SPR values in the soil. However, our research did not show such an influence, possibly due to slight differences in the moisture assumed in the experiment.
Research conducted by Jiang et al. [58] shows that soil water content has a more minor impact on SPR than soil density. The reduction in SPR with increasing soil water content is attributed to the more plastic state of moist soil [30]. Sayedahmed [63] reports a decrease in SPR with increasing moisture for dry soil. Moraes et al. [50] found that a slight reduction in the value of this parameter results in a significant increase in SPR. This increase in SPR depending on soil water content limits comparisons between the same soils with different water content. A slight decrease or increase in this parameter results in a significant increase or decrease in SPR values [64]. These authors also found that SPR increases exponentially with decreasing moisture in the range of 15–30%, which is consistent with another result [65,66] for loam and clay soils, but Ley et al. [67] found a linear correlation.
Using the results of penetration resistance tests for a given soil type, an appropriate selection of cultivation technology can be made, and in some cases, it depends on the appropriateness of individual treatments. Although the negative impact of improperly performed tillage treatments on the soil is widely known, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether a given treatment should be carried out at a given time and what tillage tools should be used in individual fields. These problems can be solved mainly by knowing the compaction of the soil.
SPR for our measurement conditions was low and did not exceed 0.8 MPa; then, according to the data provided by Medvedev [29], for the range of 0.5–1.0 MPa, sowing can be carried out without additional cultivation treatments. If the soil compaction is within the range of 1.0–1.5 MPa, two-passage harrowing should be performed before sowing cereals. If the soil compaction is from 2.0 to 2.5 MPa, cultivation to a depth of 10–12 cm and harrowing treatments are needed. When the soil compaction is very high, above 3 MPa, plowing to a depth of 16–18 cm and two-passage harrowing should be performed.

5. Conclusions

This research was aimed at assessing the usefulness of soil penetration resistance measurements as an indication for sustainable agrotechnical treatments through obtaining an answer to the question of to what extent the size of conical tips used in probes for measuring soil compaction affects the results of indications in repeatable conditions in the soil bin.
The measurements can support the introduction of sustainable agricultural practices, including no-till or precision farming. Improving the accuracy of soil compaction measurements using an appropriate cone size will enable the better planning and monitoring of the effects of introduced cultivation techniques, which is crucial for the sustainable development of agriculture. The values of soil penetration resistance can also be used to diagnose the cultivation layer and, on this basis, determine whether it is necessary to cultivate it and select the optimal tools for the required treatment.
This research showed that the values of probe readings in soil PR measurement are statistically significantly influenced by the dimensions of the probe cone tip–base surface and apex angle, as well as soil density. Still, soil moisture had no such influence, although a tendency to increase with decreasing moisture can be seen.
In measuring all variants, there was a negative correlation between the surface area of the cone base in a probe and soil compaction. Measurements of soil penetration resistance performed on the least compacted soil (1.37 g∙cm−3) with the smallest diameter probe (11.28 mm) with 30° and 60° cones showed values approximately 50% higher than the results obtained with the largest diameter probe (25.23 mm). In most cases, an increase in soil density increased differences in indications between probes. This result can be explained by the higher friction resistance of soil to the lateral surface of cones when pressing them into the soil. The change in the cone opening angle from 30° to 60° also led to increased resistance in the 10–25% range.
Concerning the probe recommended by the standard [43] with a diameter of 20.27 mm and a top angle of 30° for soil with soil penetration resistance up to 2 MPa, the probe readings with the same diameter and angle of 60° were higher by 22.8%.
For probes with diameters of 11.28 mm and 15.96 mm2, the probe readings were higher by 36.8 and 23.3%, respectively. However, for a probe with a diameter of 25.23 mm, they were smaller by 12.4% at an angle of 30°, and at an angle of 60°, an increase of 11.7% was recorded.
On the sandy loam soil used in the tests, the lowest SPR non-uniformity index was obtained using a cone with an apex angle of 60° and a base diameter of 20.6 mm, making it preferable for measurements in such soil conditions.
The values of soil penetration resistance can be used to diagnose the soil top layer and, on this basis, determine whether it is necessary to break it up and select the optimal tools for this procedure. This is particularly important when carrying out cultivation procedures in an environmentally friendly manner. Proper measurement of soil parameters will ensure its optimal structure using only the necessary tillage treatments, which should reduce the impact of machines on the environment. Improving the accuracy of soil compaction measurements using the appropriate cone size will enable the better planning and monitoring of the effects of introduced cultivation techniques, which is crucial for the sustainable development of agriculture. The measurements will help support the introduction of sustainable agricultural practices, including direct seeding, no-tillage or precision agriculture, which will reduce soil degradation and increase environmental benefits. It is advisable to continue research in this area for other types of soil and various soil conditions in order to develop appropriate nomograms and facilitate quick decision making regarding the selection of a cultivation procedure and the appropriate machine for its performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.K., M.S. and W.Z.; methodology, J.K.; software, J.K.; validation, J.K. and M.S.; formal analysis, J.K. and M.S.; investigation, J.K.; resources, J.K.; data curation, J.K. and J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.K., M.D., J.C. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.D., A.L. and W.Z.; visualization, J.K. and J.C.; supervision, A.L. and W.Z.; funding acquisition, W.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. Pabin, J. Przyczyny powstawania i sposoby zapobiegania fizycznej degradacji gleb. Postępy Nauk. Rol. 2004, 51, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
  6. Atwell, B.J. Response of root to mechanical impedance. Env. Exp. Bot. 1993, 33, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Buckman, H.C.; Brady, N.C. Soil and Its Properties; PWRiL: Warsaw, Poland, 1971; p. 529. [Google Scholar]
  8. Jabłoński, B. General Growing of Roles and Plants, 2nd ed.; PWRil: Warsaw, Poland, 1982; p. 498. [Google Scholar]
  9. Passioura, J.B. Soil conditions and plant growth. Plant Cell Env. 2002, 25, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. Farias, N.E. Physical of Soils; Editorial Trillas: Mexico City, Mexico, 1994; p. 287. [Google Scholar]
  18. Buliński, J. Soil Compaction in Various Technologies and Related Plowing Resistance; SGGW, Scientific dissertations and monographs: Warsaw, Poland, 1998; p. 140. [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. Baranowski, R. The effect of soil density on its agrophysical properties. Rocz. Glebozn. 1980, 31, 18. [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Lejman, K.; Owsiak, Z. Penetrometric method of density distribution in the soil profile. Inżynieria Rol. 2001, 1, 189–195. [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. Perumpral, J.V. Cone penetrometer applications—A review. Trans. ASABE 1987, 30, 939–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. 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]
  29. Medvedev, V.V. Soil penetration resistance and penetrographs in studies of tillage technologies. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2009, 42, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. 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]
  36. 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]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. 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]
  42. 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]
  43. 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]
  44. 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]
  45. 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]
  46. 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]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. 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]
  50. 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]
  51. Gill, W.R. Influence of compaction hardening of soil on penetration resistance. Trans. ASAE 1986, 11, 741–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nowatzki, E.A.; Karafiath, L.L. Effect of cone angle on penetration resistance. Highw. Res. Rec. 1972, 405, 51–59. [Google Scholar]
  53. 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]
  54. Koolen, A.J.; Vaandragen, P. Relationships between soil mechanical properties. J. Agric. En. Res. 1984, 29, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. 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]
  56. 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]
  57. 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]
  58. 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]
  59. Ayers, P.D.; Perumpral, J.V. Moisture and Density Effect on Cone Index. Trans. ASAE 1982, 25, 1169–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. 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]
  61. Canarache, A. Factors and indices regarding excessive compactness of agricultural soil. Soil Tillage Res. 1991, 19, 145–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. 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]
  63. 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]
  64. 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]
  65. Upadhyaya, S.K.; Kemble, L.J.; Collins, N.E. Cone index prediction equations for Delaware soils. Trans. ASAE 1982, 82, 1452–1456. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ohu, J.O.; Raghavan, G.S.V.; McKyes, E. Cone index prediction of compacted soils. Trans. ASAE 1988, 31, 306–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. 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]
Sustainability 16 06962 g001
Figure 1. Measurement preparation stages, leveling of loosened soil (a), compaction with a roller (b) and soil compaction measurements (c).
Figure 1. Measurement preparation stages, leveling of loosened soil (a), compaction with a roller (b) and soil compaction measurements (c).
Sustainability 16 06962 g001
Sustainability 16 06962 g002aSustainability 16 06962 g002b
Figure 2. Changes in penetration resistance of soil with moisture of 7.64% at individual depths, measured with probes with K30 (a) and K60 (b) cones at three levels of soil compaction.
Figure 2. Changes in penetration resistance of soil with moisture of 7.64% at individual depths, measured with probes with K30 (a) and K60 (b) cones at three levels of soil compaction.
Sustainability 16 06962 g002aSustainability 16 06962 g002b
Sustainability 16 06962 g003aSustainability 16 06962 g003b
Figure 3. Changes in penetration resistance of soil with moisture of 10.4% at individual depths, measured with cone probes with an opening angle of 30° (a) and 60° (b), at three levels of soil compaction.
Figure 3. Changes in penetration resistance of soil with moisture of 10.4% at individual depths, measured with cone probes with an opening angle of 30° (a) and 60° (b), at three levels of soil compaction.
Sustainability 16 06962 g003aSustainability 16 06962 g003b
Sustainability 16 06962 g004
Figure 4. 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° (a) and 60° (b).
Figure 4. 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° (a) and 60° (b).
Sustainability 16 06962 g004
Sustainability 16 06962 g005
Figure 5. 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° (a) and 60° (b).
Figure 5. 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° (a) and 60° (b).
Sustainability 16 06962 g005
Table 1. Composition of soil used in the experiment.
Table 1. Composition of soil used in the experiment.
ParametersValues
Soil typeFine loamy soil
Clay content (<0.002 mm) (%)2
Silt content (0.002–0.05 mm) (%)36
Sand content (>0.05 mm) (%)62
Table 2. Characteristic dimensions of cone probe tips.
Table 2. Characteristic dimensions of cone probe tips.
ProbeThe 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]
S11.011.28386.1199.9
S22.015.96773.0400.1
S33.3320.601287.7666.6
S55.025.231931.6999.1
Table 3. Analysis of variance for soil penetration resistance.
Table 3. Analysis of variance for soil penetration resistance.
Source of VariabilitySum of SquaresDegrees of FreedomMean SquareFemp.p-Value
Density of soil, G 0.738520.3692544.95 a/<0.0001
Moisture content, W0.000072610.00007260.010.9251
Cone opening angle, K1.133311.1333137.97 a/<0.0001
Surface area of the base of cone, S1.754530.584871.20 a/<0.0001
Residue7.81999520.0082
Total 11.4463959
a/—influence of factor significance at α = 0.05.
Table 4. Comparison of significant differences in group means using Tukey`s 95% HSD method.
Table 4. Comparison of significant differences in group means using Tukey`s 95% HSD method.
FactorMean soil Compaction
[MPa]		ContrastCalculation DifferenceLimit Value
Soil density, G [g∙cm−3]1.370.32861.37–1.43* −0.04080.0168
1.400.36961.37–1.5* −0.0674
1.510.39611.43–1.5* −0.0266
Cone apex angle
K, [°]		300.330430–60* −0.06870.0115
600.3991
Surface area of the base of cone
S, [cm2]		10.42371–2* 0.04180.0213
1–3.33* 0.0789
1–5* 0.1151
20.38182–3.33* 0.0371
2–5* 0.0732
3.330.34483.33–5* 0.0362
50.3086
* statistically significant differences.
Table 5. Coefficients of variation in soil penetration resistance for the tested probes.
Table 5. Coefficients of variation in soil penetration resistance for the tested probes.
Measurement VariantS3_K60S5_K60S2_K60S1_K30S2_K30S1_K60S3_K30SK_30
Coefficient of variation [%]19.519.920.121.422.823.924.927.1
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

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

AMA Style

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 Style

Klonowski, 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

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop